Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

MILFORD HAVEN (TIDAL BARRAGE) BILL [Lords]

Mr. Donnelly: I beg to move,
That the Milford Haven (Tidal Barrage) Bill [Lords] be re-committed to the former Committee and that it be an Instruction to the Committee on the re-committed Bill that they have power to reconsider their decision on the Preamble of the Bill as reported by them to the House.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Speaker: What day?

Mr. Donnelly: May I put the Motion down for 22nd October? May I seek your guidance Mr. Speaker? If the House is recalled at an earlier date, may I give notice that I wish to put it down for that date?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is in a difficulty. He must name a specific date.

Mr. Donnelly: I will name 22nd October provisionally.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH CAMEROONS

British-Protected Persons (Deportation)

Mr. R. Edwards: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what representations he has had from the French authorities in the French Cameroons for the arrest and deportation of British-protected persons in the Northern and Southern Cameroons; and what action is contemplated in this regard.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): None, Sir.

Mr. Edwards: I am surprised but very gratified to hear that reply from the Secretary of State. I have in my hands—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must ask a question.

Mr. Edwards: Is the Secretary of State aware that I have in my hands three cables from different parts of Africa indicating that British-protected persons are being arrested and deported to the French Cameroons and that their lives are in very grave danger?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: There must have been some misunderstanding on the part of the correspondents of the hon. Gentleman, because there have been no requests for the deportation of British protected persons. It is unlikely that any would be made, since the extradition treaty does not provide for the deportation of British-protected persons. There have been requests for the repatriation of French Cameroonians believed to be taking refuge in the British Cameroons. In these cases the normal extradition procedure would apply but no French Cameroonians have been repatriated. The answer to this Question is clearly "None".

Mr. Brockway: Is not the difficulty that of distinguishing between citizens of the Cameroons, to decide which people come from the French or British regions in view of the close association of these regions, and the great uncertainties about registration?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I do not think so. I think that the people who are lucky enough to be British-protected people know it.

Plebiscite, Southern Cameroons

Mr. R. Edwards: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what agreement has been reached between the parties concerned in the Southern Cameroons in connection with the questions which are to form the basis of the promised plebiscite; and what representations he has had on this subject.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I regert that so far the parties have reached no agreement. I have had no representations on the subject from the Southern


Cameroons but of course I discussed it with the Premier while I was in Nigeria in May.

Mr. R. Edwards: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what provision he has made against the possibility of the two political parties in the Southern Cameroons, namely the Kamerun National Congress Party and the Kamerun National Democratic Party, failing to agree on the questions to be submitted for the impending plebiscite.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Her Majesty's Government must reserve their attitude on this question until the political parties in the territory have given their final views, which they will no doubt do when the question comes before the General Assembly of the United Nations.

Mr. Edwards: I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be a mistake for the British administration to make an arbitrary decision? I take it from the Minister's reply that this matter will rest with the United Nations if a deadlock is reached on the questions to be submitted.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The ideal would be for the parties in the British Cameroons to agree. That is what we are working for and I hope that will happen. If that does not come off, Her Majesty's Government will have a point of view to express at the United Nations with whom the final decision will rest. I take this opportunity of thanking the hon. Gentleman for his very helpful and worth-while visit to the Southern Cameroons.

Mr. Arbuthnot: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the desirability of the Cameroonians having an opportunity of remaining under British guidance and help so that, with greater experience, they will be able to make up their own minds about their ultimate intentions?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is important that they should know what it is that they are being asked to decide. As I made clear in 1957, Her Majesty's Government accept that among the options should be

the option to continue under the trust administration of the United Kingdom. The precise form in which the questions will be asked and what the questions will be are matters for the United Nations to settle.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the present policy of political bodies in the Southern Cameroons in respect of the future of their country; how far agreement on questions to be asked in the plebiscite has been reached; and what attitude representatives of Her Majesty's Government intend to take when the United Nations reassembles.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I understand that the present Government party, the Kamerun National Democratic Party, wishes United Kingdom trusteeship separate from Nigeria to continue for some time before a final decision is taken; and that the main opposition parties, the Kamerun National Congress and the Kamerun People's Party, favour becoming a self-governing region of Nigeria. No agreement on the questions for the plebiscite has so far been reached, and Her Majesty's Government must reserve their attitude until the General Assembly meets.

Mr. Sorensen: Does the right hon. Gentleman's Answer mean that the prospect of securing agreement on the terms of the plebiscite is still very remote? Can he say whether there is any time within which some decision must be reached on this matter?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I cannot force agreement on the parties, and if they do not arrive at agreement it will be for the United Nations to meet to make up its mind, and at that meeting Her Majesty's Government will express their view.

Sir R. Robinson: In view of the fact that my right hon. Friend has completed five successful years in office today, can he confirm that in that period he has dealt with about 6,130 Questions?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My hon. Friend has many qualities, and I trust him in everything, including his mathematics.

Oral Answers to Questions — NYASALAND

Shire River Development Scheme

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the future of the Shire River Development scheme in Nyasaland, with particular reference to reclamation of land for African agriculture.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As the reply is detailed I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Thomson: In the meantime, can the right hon. Gentleman say what sort of scale of operation is envisaged, what will be the capital expenditure, and what the timetable is likely to be?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The Answer takes up two and a half pages of foolscap, and it would be very unwise to try to summarise it at this stage.

Following are the details:

SHIRE VALLEY PROJECT

The various projects which combined together will eventually constitute a total scheme for Shire Valley development have recently been reviewed and considered by the Government of Nyasaland and, to the extent which they are concerned, by the Federal Government. There are three principal aspects.

The first is a scheme for using the water of the Shire River in the urban development of Blantyre and Limbe and the immediate neighbourhood. For this purpose the Nyasaland Government, out of its £3 million C.D. & W. allocation is providing £1 million towards the cost. The Colonial Development Corporation is also working out means by which it can provide the remainder of the funds required and negotiations between it and the Nyasaland Government are in an advanced stage. When the final proposals emerge they will be considered with the utmost sympathy so that the scheme may go forward quickly.

A new scheme for the use of the river for power is in an advanced stage of consideration. It is for a 14 megawatt installation at the Mkula Falls, which may cost £3 million. The Federal Government, who have the primary responsibility for the power aspects of development, have provided the funds to commission a project report, which is now nearly completed. It will then have to be examined by both the Federal and the Nyasaland Governments, but if the report is favourable, it is hoped that the scheme will be able to start without further delay thereafter.

The financing of this scheme is the responsibility of the Federal Government,

who may do this within the ambit of their overall development plans, for which in the past they have been able to raise money by loans issued on the London market, as well as from their own resources. Failing this they may perhaps suggest to Her Majesty's Government that finance may be made available in the form of Commonwealth assistance loans in the spirit of the Montreal decisions. Naturally, careful consideration would be given to what would most appropriately be done.

The third resource is land. Large areas in the lower Shire Valley are at present swamp. The Nyasaland Government have commissioned a firm of consultants, who are carrying out an investigation as to the extent to which a large part of this area, which at present is only sporadically cultivated, can be brought into permanent cultivation. This will need some form of water control. Preliminary investigations show that the soil is excellent and that it may be possible to get water control without the expensive barrages previously contemplated. The final report of the consultants is awaited and when it is available it will naturally require very careful consideration by all the Governments concerned—the Federal Government, the Nyasaland Government and Her Majesty's Government.

The calls on Her Majesty's Government's financial resources for Colonial development are many and varied in relation to the size of the funds available, but it is very much hoped that it may be possible, at the appropriate time, to find the necessary finance to make a start on these projects and hon. Members may be assured that I shall not let any unnecessary obstacle stand in its way.

Prohibited Publication

Mr. Foot: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will state the grounds upon which the Governor of Nyasaland has prohibited the entry into the Protectorate of the periodical entitled Dissent.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Julian Amery): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) on 28th July.

Mr. Foot: Can the hon. Member say whether there was any ground for keeping out this periodical from the Protectorate except that it had published an article from an ex-detainee about the conditions in Kanjedza detention camp?

Mr. Amery: I have nothing to add to what I said in my last reply.

Dr. Hastings Banda

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will either arrange for the release of Dr. Hastings Banda from detention or permit him to travel to this country for residence until he is permitted to return to residence in Nyasaland.

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if, in view of the findings of the Devlin Commission, he will release Dr. Banda from detention.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have nothing to add to what I said on this subject in the debate on Tuesday, 28th July.

Mr. Sorensen: Will the right hon. Gentleman think over this matter again, in view of the fact that Dr. Banda lived here until quite recently and had lived here honourably for many years? If he cannot be released in Nyasaland, it would be only fair and gracious to allow him to come here pending alterations that may take place in future. Will the right hon. Gentleman seriously consider this matter again?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It would be unwise if I added anything to what I said during the course of a very long debate two days ago.

Mr. Callaghan: If Dr. Banda has to be kept away from Nyasaland, would it not be wise to bring him to London, so that the Colonial Secretary may be in a position to start the constitutional talks that will be necessary sooner or later in order that the next stages may be begun?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am afraid that not even that sort of cunning way of trying to get me to say more than I said in the debate will prompt me to do so.

Mr. Bottomley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on Tuesday I asked the Prime Minister a Question similar to Question No. 14 and received a most unsatisfactory Answer from the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies? In view of the debate in another place yesterday, does not the Colonial Secretary feel that there should be further consultations with the Prime Minister about the release of Dr. Banda?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I was not able to attend the whole debate in another place

yesterday, although I attended parts of it. I shall naturally read the report of the debate very carefully. But my general impression was that it confirmed the attitude taken by Her Majesty's Government in this House.

Mr. J. Griffiths: In the light of the experience of successive Colonial Secretaries, would the right hon. Gentleman care to forecast how long it will be before Dr. Banda becomes Prime Minister of Nyasaland?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Speculation is always unwise.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST INDIES

Citrus Industry (Five-Year Plan)

Mr. Fisher: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is yet in a position to make a statement on the West Indian citrus industry negotiations.

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is now in a position to make a statement on the decisions reached as a result of the negotiations with the citrus delegation from the West Indies Federation; and what have been the reasons for the delay.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, Sir. The discussions with the West Indian delegation concluded yesterday. The objective of the talks was to work out a comprehensive five-year plan for the industry; and agreement was reached with the delegation on such a plan, which will now be considered by the Governments of the West Indies and British Honduras. Agreement was also reached on the lines of a new four-year arrangement to cover the sale of concentrated orange juice for the United Kingdom welfare scheme. The talks were somewhat protracted because they had to survey the whole field of problems facing the citrus industry in the West Indies, and this involved a number of complex technical, agricultural, financial and trade questions. An agreed statement was issued at the conclusion of the talks, and with permission I will circulate the text of this in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Fisher: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. Is he aware of the gratitude expressed to me by


members of the West Indian delegation for the help they received from the Colonial Office in these long negotiations, and also for his personal intervention despite his many other preoccupations this week, which was instrumental in converting deadlock into decision and even accord?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I thank my hon. Friend very much.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he is satisfied that the four-year period that he has mentioned will be sufficient to enable the industry to build up and meet possible competition from America and elsewhere?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It was a five-year period for research and development and a four-year period for the orange juice contract. Yes, I think it is sufficient, and that is also the view of the delegation.

Mr. Bottomley: I should like to associate this side of the House with the compliment that has been paid to the Colonial Secretary for getting a settlement with the West Indies delegation, but may I ask him not to hang it out so much that it creates great uncertainty, so that even now, although the delegation is satisfied, it is not absolutely confident that the future is secure?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I do not think that even eight or ten weeks is too long in which to get agreement and to settle a very complicated and important subject touching the future of the West Indies for the next five years.

Following is the text of the agreed statement:

Discussions at the Colonial Office with a delegation from the West Indies and British Honduras, led by Dr. C. G. D. La Corbiniere, Deputy Prime Minister of the Federation of The West Indies, concluded today, Wednesday, July 29, 1959.

The delegation included agricultural and technical advisers; and the discussions covered the whole field of problems facing the citrus industries of the West Indies and British Honduras, especially in regard to the need for research and development schemes, and for a degree of market assurance in the United Kingdom, to which the industry looks as its main market.

During the currency of the price assistance scheme for the industry which was operative from 1955 to June, 1959, a number of expert

reports on different aspects of the industry was made. In the light of these, detailed work was carried out during the present discussions on the outlines of plans to safeguard and develop the industry.

A plan for a research unit for the industry was worked out and is under consideration by the Colonial Agricultural Research Committee.

The broad outlines of a development plan to assist growers in the application of larger quantities of fertilisers were worked out. Such a plan would of necessity be a matter for consideration by the Governments of the West Indies and British Honduras, and will be taken up with those Governments by the delegation on its return.

The delegation represented that plans for research and development would be rendered ineffective unless measures could be taken to give the industry a sufficient degree of market assurance over a period of five years. The nature and extent of the risks facing the industry were fully discussed. The problems of trade policy involved are complex and there was agreement on the ways in which Her Majesty's Government would seek solutions.

Other matters discussed with the delegation included the long-term contract for the sale of West Indian and British Honduras concentrated orange juice for the United Kingdom welfare scheme, which comes to an end in 1960. Agreement was reached on the lines of a new arrangement to cover the succeeding four years.

The objective of the discussions was to work out plans designed to raise the yields of the industry and thereby place it in a position, by the end of the development period, to meet fair competition from any quarter. The plans discussed were related as a whole to this objective, and the discussions, necessarily involving many technical, agricultural, financial and trade problems, were successful in drawing up the broad outlines of a comprehensive five-year plan for the industry.

Oral Answers to Questions — UGANDA

Disturbances

Mr. Dugdale: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the fact that the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the disturbances in Nyasaland has revealed a state of affairs different from that which he himself had previously thought to have existed, he will now reconsider his decision not to hold an inquiry into the disturbances that took place recently in Uganda.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, Sir.

Mr. Dugdale: Will the Colonial Secretary say why he will not give the people of Uganda the same opportunity as was given to the people of Nyasaland to


appear before an independent tribunal to give evidence? Is he afraid that if he does so there will be as much condemnation of his administration of Uganda as was made of his administration of Nyasaland? Is he afraid, in particular, that it will refer to the police State that he has set up in Buganda?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is certainly not a police State. The right hon. Gentleman's visit did not help to ease the situation there, but the situation in Buganda is wholly different, and I very much hope that as a result, among other things, of the statement of his Highness the Kabaka a few days ago, tranquillity will be restored to Uganda.

Oral Answers to Questions — ADEN PROTECTORATE

Aden-Yemen Frontier

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many sheikhs or native rulers in the Aden Protectorate have withdrawn to the Yemen during the past three years; how many have returned and how many Yemeni sheikhs or other Yemenis have been allowed to settle in the Protectorate; to what extent the road from the Yemen into the Aden Protectorate is now open to the transport of goods and passengers both ways; and what control of immigrants from the Protectorate into Aden Colony exists or is practicable.

Mr. J. Amery: The rulers of three minor States went to the Yemen. All three later returned to their States.
In addition, some 30 minor tribal section leaders went there and 18 have returned.
Fourteen leading Yemeni Sheikhs fled to the Aden side of the frontier.
I have no figure for the total number of other Yemenis settled in the Protectorate.
The Aden-Taiz road has never been closed.
As regards control of immigration from the Protectorate into the Colony of Aden, this was covered in the reply given by my hon. Friend the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, in his reply to the hon. Member on 27th November, 1958, and I have nothing to add to this.

Mr. Sorensen: Does the hon. Member's Answer mean that far more will come from the Yemen to Aden to settle than vice versa? Can he say whether any kind of penalty was imposed on the sheikhs and native rulers who went to the Yemen and then returned? Did they maintain their former status?

Mr. Amery: With regard to the first part of the hon. Member's supplementary question, the answer is "Yes". The traffic has been much more from the Yemen into Aden than the other way round. As for the second part of the supplementary question, I will look into the matter and write to the hon. Member

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL TERRITORIES

Admiralty Jurisdiction

Mr. Knox Cunningham: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the ratification by the United Kingdom of the International Convention relating to the Arrest of Sea going Ships, 1952, he will, in addition to consulting the administration in Bermuda, also consult the appropriate authorities in all the other territories for which responsibility is exercised through the Colonial Office, excepting Aden Protectorate, Brunei, Gambia Protectorate, Sierra Leone Protectorate, the New Hebrides, Tonga, Uganda, and Zanzibar, in order to have the Admiralty jurisdiction contained in the Administration of Justice Act, 1956, applied to the courts of their respective territories by Orders in Council made under Section 56 of the said Act.

Mr. J. Amery: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Knox Cunningham: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Can he give any estimate as to when such consultations are likely to be concluded?

Mr. Amery: No, Sir, I do not think I can.

Merchant Shipping (Liability of Ship-owners and Others) Act

Mr. Knox Cunningham: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the ratification by the United Kingdom of the International Convention relating to the Limitation of Liability of Sea-going Ships, 1957, he will consult the appropriate authorities


in all territories for which responsibility is exercised through the Colonial Office, excepting Aden Protectorate, Brunei, Gambia Protectorate, Sierra Leone Protectorate, the New Hebrides, Tonga, Uganda, and Zanzibar, in order to have the provisions of the Merchant Shipping (Liability of Ship-owners and Others) Act, 1958, applied to their respective territories by Orders in Council made under Section 11 of the said Act.

Mr. J. Amery: My right hon. Friend has already approached colonial Administrations on this question and is awaiting their views.
Some colonial Governments may prefer to adopt the provisions of the United Kingdom Act, or similar provisions, by amendment of their own local legislation rather than have the United Kingdom Act extended to them by Order in Council.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALTA

Democratic Institutions

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when it is now proposed to re-establish and extend democratic institutions in Malta.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I cannot add anything to my reply to the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Awbery) on 23rd June.

Mr. Brockway: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, as it had been indicated that when there was quietude in the island the matter of a new and more liberal constitution would be considered, and as there have been no disturbances for six months, is it not time now that negotiations were resumed with the parties in Malta for a new and liberal constitution?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I do not think the time is yet opportune for that, though I gladly pay tribute to the fact that the situation in Malta at the present time is calm and wise.

Mr. Awbery: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the present method of governing the island has created a certain amount of bitterness—it may be underground bitterness, but it is still there? Could he say what steps have been taken to ascertain the wishes of

the people about the future of democratic government in the island?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I do not think that would be a fair description of the attitude of the majority of the people.

Mr. J. Griffiths: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the matter, as this is one of the territories upon which we found a real bipartisan approach to the problem, though, unfortunately, it broke down? In view of the fact that this is the oldest Colony and that it has a deep association with this country, will he undertake to review the matter, so that Malta can be brought back into the main stream of our colonial development?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If the right hon. Gentleman will read the speech of the new Governor on taking office, he will see in that speech an attitude of forward-looking hope, which is also the view of Her Majesty's Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — TANGANYIKA

Constitutional Development

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when it is now proposed to establish full self-government in Tanganyika.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It would be premature to estimate when this stage in the constitutional evolution will be reached.

Mr. Brockway: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Tanganyika African National Union won just as sweeping a victory at the last election, even including the European and Asian representatives? In view of the very constructive attitude of its leaders towards racial co-operation, is it not time that there was some reconsideration of the demand put forward by the party which was elected by an overwhelming majority of the people?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman's supplementary question altogether leaves out the fact that it was only at the beginning of this month that the first elected Ministers took office in Tanganyika. It also overlooks the fact that the Ramage Commission is now sitting, and that when it reports and the Government have had time to study it, the


Governor has undertaken to make a statement.

Mr. Dugdale: Will not the right hon. Gentleman give some encouragement to people who have, in fact, produced just that unity for which he has asked among different races, and which he has not found in every country to the same extent as in Tanganyika?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That is quite a different question. Of course, I give encouragement to all people who approach problems in that non-racial way.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH GUIANA

Constitutional Development

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when it is now proposed to establish full self-government in British Guiana.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As the House will be aware from the reply given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to the hon. Member on 20th November, 1958, the Governor has appointed a Constitutional Committee to go into the whole question of the form which future constitutional development in British Guiana should take.
I have not yet received the report of this Committee; and until I have been able to consider its recommendations I am unable to make any statement on the matter.

Mr. Brockway: Is it the case that there are likely to be further discussions in September and, if so, in view of the very commendable attitude of the parties in British Guiana since the interim Constitution was introduced, will the right hon. Gentleman give encouragement now to the demand for full self-government for that territory?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If the hon. Gentleman casts his mind back only a few months, he will realise that when the Committee was set up, it was agreed that I should receive the reports of the Committee, and that I would consider them in consultation with the people who had taken part in the Committee. I have not yet received a report, but I understand from the chairman that he has decided not to submit the main report until he has received certain minority reports which

some members of the Committee are preparing. The existence of minority reports shows that it is not quite so simple a matter as the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question might suggest.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Home Safety

Mrs. McLaughlin: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has considered a letter from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents in regard to their plans for the extension of home safety lecturers and organisers; and if he will make a statement.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Renton): I regret that I am not in a position to add to the Answer which my right hon. Friend gave on 23rd July to Questions by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Dr. Johnson) and the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann).

Mrs. McLaughlin: Is the Minister aware that the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents has undertaken a very much larger campaign in the prevention of these accidents; that it has stated quite clearly what its commitments will be, and that the present grant is totally inadequate if it is to continue its work? Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the possibility of increasing the grant in the near future?

Mr. Renton: As the hon. Lady must realise, the position is that the Society is expected to enlist voluntary finance from outside sources, but the Home Office and the Scottish Office each advance up to £1,500 a year on their Votes on a deficiency basis, and that is the present position. No promise has been made, or can at present be given, in regard to future years.

Mrs. McLaughlin: Surely, the Minister agrees that this is a very paltry sum, despite whatever may be received from voluntary contributions, in view of the seriousness and the number of accidents occurring every year, when one considers the amount of money put into the Road Safety Campaign, which is very important, and the miserable sum put into this campaign, which is equally important?

Mr. Renton: As my right hon. Friend pointed out on a previous occasion, the Society has increased its facilities, and has appointed a second secretary in the Home Safety Department and an organiser for Scotland and the North of England.

London Bankruptcy Court (Finn's Managing Director)

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to require the return to this country of the managing director of a firm, particulars of which have been sent to him by the hon. Member for Dundee, East, and whose presence in this country has been requested by the senior official receiver of the London Bankruptcy Court.

Mr. Renton: My right hon. Friend cannot take steps to obtain the return of a person to this country from abroad unless a warrant has been issued for his arrest in respect of an extraditable criminal offence and he is in a country with which we have an extradition treaty. These requirements are not at present fulfilled in the case which I understand the hon. Member has in mind.

Mr. Thomson: Is the Minister aware that many people in different parts of the country have lost substantial sums of money through the sharp and dishonest sales practice of this Mass Machine Vending Company, and that its managing director, Mr. Levine, has apparently fled the country rather than face the financial consequences of the disaster he has caused? Is the Minister really saying that he can do nothing to ensure that this man is brought back to this country so that justice can be done in this matter?

Mr. Renton: It depends whether or not he is in a country with which we have an extradition treaty. Most bankruptcy offences are extraditable, but, of course, a criminal proceeding would have to be started and a warrant obtained.

Mr. Hamilton: Can the Minister tell us what information he has received from the Board of Trade about the activities of this firm, because I understand that the Board of Trade has sent on to the Home Office the particulars which I supplied? Will he give an undertaking

to communicate with my hon. Friend and myself and give us an indication of exactly what kind of investigation the Home Department has undertaken in this matter, because there are literally thousands of people who have been deprived of their life savings through the dishonesty of this man?

Mr. Renton: The Question relates to the inquiries by the senior official receiver, whereas the question of extradition can apply only when there are criminal proceedings. If either of the hon. Gentlemen have any further information they would like to give me, I should be glad to consider it.

Mr. Ede: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman consider asking for the opinion of the Director of Public Prosecutions on the matter?

Mr. Renton: I would have thought, quite candidly, that that is a question which would be more appropriately addressed to the Board of Trade, which is more closely concerned with prosecutions in a matter of this kind.

Mr. Ede: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman himself ask the Board of Trade for an opinion?

Schoolchildren (Employment)

Dr. King: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many local education authorities forbid the employment of children under the age of 15 years on school days;
(2) how many local education authorities permit children under the age of 15 years to engage in paid employment before going to school in the morning.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): No local education authority has prohibited altogether the employment of children under 15 on school days, and it appears doubtful whether a local education authority has power to do so; 116 authorities allow employment for not more than one hour before school.

Dr. King: Is the hon. Lady aware that not a single public schoolboy or independent schoolboy or a child of a Member of this House goes out selling newspapers before he starts the arduous day's work in school? Does not the


Under-Secretary agree that it would be very much in the interests of equality of opportunity, for which the Home Secretary did so much in the 1944 Act, if we prevented children under 15 years of age from going out delivering newspapers before going to school?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: Under Section 18 of the Act this matter is left to the local authorities. Before putting bye-laws before my right hon. Friend, they have to consider very carefully, and we have the duty to see that they have considered carefully, any objections that may have been made to their proposals. Generally speaking, I think the local authorities can be trusted to deal with this matter sensibly; and, if I may say so, I think the hon. Member is making rather a sweeping assertion when he claims that no child from the schools that he has mentioned ever undertakes a certain amount of this hourly employment.

Mr. H. A. Price: Is my hon. Friend aware that while it may be true that no children of hon. Members do this work, many hon. Members did so when they were children and they do not seem to be any the worse for it?

Research and Experimental Establishments (Animals)

Mr. Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how often the animals used at the Chemical Defence Experimental Establishment and the Microbiological Research Establishment at Porton are inspected under the provisions of the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876.

Mr. Renton: An inspector under the Act has visited the Chemical Defence Experimental Establishment three times and the Microbiological Research Establishment four times so far this year.

Mr. Lipton: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman say whether these inspectors are inoculated beforehand? I ask that because when hon. Members visited the Microbiological Research Establishment they were refused access to the place where the animal experiments were being conducted on the ground that they had not been inoculated beforehand?

Mr. Renton: No. This is a very interesting question, but I should require to have notice of it.

Mr. V. Yates: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in view of the fact that experiments performed on animals under the provisions of the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876, may be carried out only with a view to the advancement by new discovery of physiological knowledge or of knowledge which will be useful for saving or prolonging life or alleviating suffering, by what authority experiments have been, and are being, carried out at the Porton Microbiological Research Station, of a kind in which highly toxic substances are tested on animals with a view solely to assessing their lethal potentialities.

Mr. Renton: The purpose of such experiments is to advance knowledge which will be useful for saving or prolonging life and alleviating suffering in the event of the use of toxic substances in war.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Frank Allaun.

Mr. Yates: On a point of order. May I not ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: I called Mr. Frank Allaun. The hon. Gentleman was too slow.

Mr. Yates: Surely, Mr. Speaker, I proceeded to get up after my Question was answered.

Mr. Speaker: Well, this is the last day. Mr. Victor Yates.

Mr. Yates: The Minister did not appear to answer the Question that I was asking him. Is the Joint Under-Secretary of State suggesting that experiments on about 100,000 animals in the past year were solely for the advancement of physiological knowledge? Is not the concern that most people are feeling based upon the belief that the animals are being used in most cases for the purpose of assessing lethal potentialities?

Mr. Renton: The object of the experiments is to discover antidotes and protective measures when toxic substances are used in war, so that life may be saved and suffering alleviated if such substances are used. It is true that a great


many animals are used for such experiments, and my right hon. Friend is satisfied that they are rightly so used.

Postcards

Mr. H. A. Price: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what complaints he has received about the existence and activities of an organisation, purporting to exercise censorship over postcards, details of which have been set to him by the hon. Member for Lewisham, West; what action he proposes to take; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Renton: My hon. Friend has been good enough to draw my right hon. Friend's attention to a self-styled British Board of Postcard Censors. This body has no official standing and its certificates have no legal basis or effect.

Mr. Price: If my hon. and learned Friend has seen some of the postcards purporting to have been approved by this body, would he not agree that they are in the main filthy rather than funny? Is it not unfortunate that they should be permitted to carry what appears to be an official stamp of approval?

Mr. Renton: Although I may well set myself up as an arbiter of taste, I cannot express an opinion on a matter of obscenity. The point that I wish to stress is that it is no part of the Government's duty to help the publishers of vulgar postcards to sail as close to the wind as possible.

Mr. Price: Will my hon. and learned Friend at least make it clear that these stamps do not carry any immunity from prosecution?

Mr. Renton: No immunity whatsoever. Indeed, in respect of some of them bearing this particular stamp there have been successful prosecutions.

Habeas Corpus (Legislation)

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now announce detailed proposals for ensuring that there will always be an appeal available against refusal of a grant of habeas corpus.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): The Government intend, when a convenient opportunity can be found, to propose that the law should be amended so as to provide for an appeal from the Divisional Court to the House of Lords in any criminal cause or matter, including not only applications for habeas corpus but also applications for the prerogative orders and cases stated by magistrates or quarter sessions, as well as convictions for criminal contempt of court. It is proposed that an appeal should lie only where the point of law involved is one of general public importance which merits consideration by the highest tribunal. The Government propose at the same time to abolish the certificate procedure under Section 1 (6) of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, and to provide for appeals from the Court of Criminal Appeal to be dealt with on substantially the same basis as those from the Divisional Court.

Mr. Fletcher: Does the Home Secretary appreciate that that announcement will be very generally welcomed? May we take it that legislation is required and will be introduced as soon as possible?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. Legislation will be required and will be introduced in the next Session of Parliament.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Does my right hon. Friend's announcement mean that an appeal in those cases would be direct from the Divisional Court to the House of Lords and would not go through the Court of Appeal on the way?

Mr. Butler: I should want to examine my hon. Friend's supplementary question in detail before sending him a reply.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Is the Home Secretary aware that without committing ourselves to the approval of the exact details of what he said, we very much welcome the statement and look forward, when we on this side of the House are in office, to introducing the legislation?

Mr. Butler: I have refrained, in such matters as contempt of court, from introducing any such significance into my remarks. The fact is that whoever is the next Government will find a great deal of very useful work ready to bring in.

Factory, Hockley (Fire)

Mr. V. Yates: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that four persons recently died as a result of a fire at the factory of J. F. Spears, Limited, Great Hampton Street, Hockley, and a number of people in houses adjoining this factory were in considerable danger because of inadequate means of escape; what report he has received from the Chief Fire Officer, Birmingham, concerning this fire; and if he will make a statement.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I am sure the House will join with me in expressing sympathy for the relatives of those who lost their lives in this fire. A report upon the operational aspects of the fire has been received from the chief fire officer. The report does not mention the danger to people living in nearby houses, and I understand that it is considered to be doubtful whether these people were in danger on this occasion.

Mr. Yates: Will the hon. Lady take note of the fact that a number of tenants had to be put out into the street for two hours because the passage was narrow and dangerous? Is she further aware that the housing manager of Birmingham admits that there are many premises of this nature which cause considerable danger and apprehension to many people in Birmingham, especially in view of the loss of life which has taken place? Will she look into the matter, with a view to safeguarding the lives of Birmingham people?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: While appreciating the concern shown by the hon. Gentleman, I would point out to him that my right hon. Friend's responsibility is concerned with seeing that the fire brigade functions efficiently—I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that it did—and with ensuring that it is in a position to give adequate advice about fire prevention. Fire precautions in private dwellings are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs.

Firearms (Unlawful Possession)

Sir F. Medlicott: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to provide that after a stated period any person

found in unlawful possession of a firearm will receive a sentence of not less than five years' imprisonment.

Mr. Renton: No, Sir. There are serious objections in principle to a minimum penalty. Courts ought to be free to fix a penalty within a specified maximum according to the circumstances of the offence and the offender. The law already provides for penalties up to a maximum of 14 years' imprisonment for possession of firearms in connection with criminal activities.

Sir F. Medlicott: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that the present arrangements are rather one-sided, because while criminals may be in possession of firearms and the police continue to be liable to be shot at there may be understandable pressure for the police to be armed, which would not necessarily be a good thing?

Mr. Renton: I dare say that my hon. Friend appreciates that there is nothing to prevent people surrendering firearms to the police. In each of the last ten years, an average of about 1,900 firearms have been surrendered to the Metropolitan Police. It is not felt that any change in the present practice would cause criminals to surrender the firearms which some of them undoubtedly possess.

Civil Defence (Lectures)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that misleading information is being given to mothers in lectures on civil defence measures to provide protection against nuclear warfare; and what steps he takes to ensure accuracy in all lectures and information relating to civil defence matters.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend does not know what particular talks the hon. Member has in mind, but anyone officially concerned with civil defence instruction and information is provided with authentic material through official channels.

Mr. Allaun: Will the Minister examine reports, which I can send her, of such lectures given in schools where so-called useful hints include, "Paint your windows with a mixture of whitewash and curdled milk to prevent blast", "Soak your curtains in borax and starch


to prevent fire", and "Have candles in plant pots to produce heat"? Is not the effect of such lectures to deceive ordinary people into thinking that a real protection against the bomb exists?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: If the hon. Member were sufficiently interested to study the very careful investigations and experiments that have taken place and the authentic material that has been provided for these lectures—practical measures, I imagine he is thinking of the "One-in-five" lecture scheme operated by the W.V.S.—I do not think he would scoff, as his supplementary question implies, at the responsible attitude of people who are surprised how much they could do, in the unfortunate event of an emergency, to protect themselves and their families.

Detained Persons (Medical Attention)

Mr. Abse: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what facilities are open to legal advisers of persons detained in custody to obtain medical or psychiatric attention for their clients without delay on the part of the detaining authority.

Mr. Renton: An untried prisoner may for the purposes of his defence receive a visit from a registered medical practitioner, who may be a psychiatrist, selected by him or by his friends or legal advisers. A prisoner who is an appellant may be similarly visited for the purposes of his appeal. An untried prisoner with reasonable ground for desiring it, may further be visited and treated by a registered medical practitioner of his own choice if he is able and willing to defray any expense thereby incurred. Facilities for these visits are normally available on application to the prison governor.

Mr. Abse: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that in many cases, particularly of a psychiatric nature, it is essential that the detaining authority should immediately notify the legal adviser in order that there should not be undue delay, since a trial could be prejudiced? Will he give an assurance that instructions are given to detaining authorities that when mental instability is suspected in detained men their legal advisers are immediately advised so that

independent psychiatric advice can come to the detained individual?

Mr. Renton: I think the hon. Member has made a point which is worthy of consideration and I shall see that it is given great thought.

Prisoner (Restraint)

Mr. Abse: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department upon whose authority and advice and for what periods of time a person detained while awaiting trial for murder in the Glamorgan Summer Assizes was placed in a strait jacket.

Mr. Renton: The prisoner whom I think the hon. Member has in mind was twice placed in a canvas restraint packet, once in Cardiff prison for a period of 20 hours 45 minutes and once in Bristol prison for a period of 21 hours 40 minutes. He was partially removed from the restraint during both of these periods for three intervals of approximately five minutes each. The restraint jacket was used in each case on the instructions of a medical officer.

Mr. Abse: Is the Joint Under-Secretary of State aware that no self-respecting mental hospital would today use a strait jacket and that it is barbaric and mediaeval that these methods should be used—as mediaeval as putting on trial a schizoid paranoiac, as occurred in this case? Would he consider whether it is possible in local prisons in Wales to be able to have access immediately to local psychiatric advice and not to depend on psychiatric advice in Bristol or Exeter so that these disgraceful mediaeval scenes should cease forthwith?

Mr. Renton: Restraint jackets are used only in those rare cases where the prisoner is so violent that he may do injury to himself or to others. The prisoner can be put in a strait jacket only on the instructions of a medical officer, and a psychiatrist can be brought in in any case in which it seems advisable to do so.

India, Pakistan and Caribbean (Immigrants to the United Kingdom)

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the estimated net inward movement of


immigrants into the United Kingdom from India, Pakistan and the Caribbean countries, respectively, for 1958 and for the current year to the latest available date.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I will, with permission, circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Davies: Will the hon. Lady state why regular and more frequent statistics dealing with immigrants are not published, as that would save putting Questions on the Order Paper when information is required? Do the figures include all entries, by air, sea and short sea routes?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: The hon. Member will be aware that it is easier to obtain exact statistics of aliens than of British subjects who have free right of admission at any time to this country, but I shall look into the question he has raised to see whether it is possible to provide statistics more regularly.

Approximate figures are as follows:


—
1958
1959 (to 30th June)


India
6,200
1,600


Pakistan
5,000
—*


West Indies
15,000
5,400


* It is estimated that there has been a small net outward movement to Pakistan during this period.

Motor Bicycles (Noise)

Sir F. Medlicott: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied that, when members of the public send to the police the registration numbers of motor bicycles which make excessive noise on the highways, the police have adequate powers under the regulations to inspect such machines at the homes of the owners and to test the amount of noise they make; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Renton: The police have powers, under the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations. 1955, to test the silencer of a motor vehicle on private premises, with the agreement of the owner of the premises and of the owner of the vehicle. My right hon. Friend is informed by the Commissioner of Police

of the Metropolis that these powers are of limited value and are seldom exercised. Apart from difficulties about access to premises, there is no satisfactory equipment which the police could use for measuring noise; excessive noise is often due to misuse of the vehicle rather than to any mechanical defect; and even if a vehicle is found to have a defective silencer no offence is committed unless it is used on the road in that condition

Sir F. Medlicott: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that much of the mischief in this matter is caused by motor cyclists who either remove or interfere with the silencing devices which have been so carefully provided by the manufacturers and that the public would welcome any opportunity that could be found of their being able to help the police in the efforts to reduce what is becoming a very serious and unpleasant nuisance?

Mr. Renton: It is a fact that the removal of effective silencers gives rise to great nuisance. I hope that as many people as possible will bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.

Oral Answers to Questions — NUCLEAR TESTS

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Prime Minister if he will give an undertaking that there will be no nuclear test explosions by Great Britain before the resumption of Parliament.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
So long as useful discussions continue at the Conference on the discontinuance of nuclear tests, Her Majesty's Government would not propose to authorise the resumption of testing.

Mr. Allaun: While thanking the Home Secretary for that Answer, may I ask if he can give such an undertaking even if no agreement is reached? Would it not be a terrible thing for humanity and our hopes for peace if these tests were resumed because, if we cannot stop them, we have precious little chance of stopping anything else? Would it not be very wrong to resume these tests during the Recess in the absence of Members of Parliament?

Mr. Butler: In the midst of negotiations designed to achieve a major result I think it would be unwise for me to go any further than my reply. The hon. Member need not deduce from my remarks anything which would be of a dangerous or unpleasant character. I simply consider that in the middle of negotiations following on statements made by the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary we had better adhere to that Answer.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is it really necessary for the right hon. Gentleman to be quite so guarded in his replies? After all talks go on and no tests take place; then, when the talks stop, is it seriously suggested that Her Majesty's Government will make a new nuclear test explosion before we come back in the autumn? Surely the preparation for these tests alone would take far longer than between now and the date of resumption? Could he not be more categorical in his assurances?

Mr. Butler: I do not think it is usual in the middle of a negotiation to achieve a desired result—namely, the discontinuation of nuclear tests—to make statements about the future after the negotiations, when we trust the negotiations will be successful. Therefore, I cannot go further than I have today.

Mr. Gaitskell: While negotiations are continuing, the right hon. Gentleman has assured us that there will be no further tests. All we are asking is that he should go a shade further than that and say that there will be no tests before Parliament meets again. What conceivable objection can there be to giving such an assurance? How could it possibly interfere with the negotiations taking place now?

Mr. Butler: As I say, this matter has been discussed with my right hon. Friends and myself and it has frequently been stated by them that this is our policy. I am not prepared to go further than that today. Nor do I think it would be right to make any deduction such as the right hon. Member indicated as possible from the fact that I cannot go further than that today, because the Government realise fully the importance of this subject and the potential dangers.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE

Pensions Regulations (Widows and Dependants)

Mr. Awbery: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware of the increasing hazards to Metropolitan police officers in the execution of their duties; and if he will introduce legislation to give more generous treatment, such as is given in similar circumstances in the United States of America, to the dependants of these public servants who lose their lives while carrying out their duties.

Mr. Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will provide more adequate compensation for the dependants of policemen killed on duty.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The Police Pensions Regulations governing the amount of awards made to the widows of police officers who die as a result of injuries in the execution of their duty were last revised in 1953, and the basis for their assessment, which received the general approval of the House at that time, still seems to me to be sound.

Mr. Awbery: Can the Minister inform us whether the amount received by the widow of the officer who was recently shot is more than she would have received if he had died a natural death? Can he say if he is satisfied that the amount which she will receive will be such as to encourage any other officer to take the necessary risks when carrying out his duty?

Mr. Butler: The first part of that supplementary question comes up on a later Question on the Order Paper, and I think I ought to answer it then. The answer to the second part of the supplementary question is that the present basis is the best that we could adopt. It was initiated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) in 1953. The decrease in the value of money is not a ground for reconsideration, since the pension is on a rate proportionate to the husband's pay. Therefore, the basis of this present arrangement is a sound one.

Mr. Ede: May I say, as a personal explanation, that I was not responsible in 1953 but I did support the recommendation of the then Home Secretary?

Mr. Lipton: Is the Home Secretary aware that despite what he has said, public opinion generally feels that we deal with these cases in a rather mean way? In view of the fact that such cases are fortunately rare, should we not be a little more generous than the present regulations provide? After all, in cases of road accidents or industrial injuries, the unfortunate victims and their dependants are treated much more generously.

Mr. Butler: I have compared the police benefits in cases of this kind with other public pension schemes, and, on the whole, I find them to be better. Of course, it is not a subject that I would leave absolutely static, but the present basis is a sound one on which to proceed.
In answer to the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), I was really paying him a compliment, because the plan in 1953 was based on plans that he left behind him.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that we should look again at this matter? The police are not comparable with any other set of people in the country. These are very brave men who have to risk, and sometimes lose, their lives. Should not we look again at the whole question of a more generous provision, when these men lose their lives, for their dependants?

Mr. Butler: As I said, this is obviously a matter which must not remain static and which needs continuous review. I entirely endorse the right hon. Gentleman's statement that these are very gallant men whom we should look after.

Detective Sergeant Purdy

Dr. King: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what compensation he proposes to pay to the widow and dependants of Detective Sergeant Purdy.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave to Questions on this subject on 23rd July last.

Dr. King: Can the Home Secretary tell us the actual amount of special pension in the weekly income which the

widow is to receive? As the police, with the good will and support of all of us, are now engaged in an attempt to battle against crimes of violence, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it would be an encouragement to these brave men if they knew that their widows would be adequately cared for by the State?

Mr. Butler: In a previous Answer I said that the total sum was £10 10s. 8d. The combined police pension, Industrial Injuries and widow's award amounts to £7 4s. 6d., and the rest of the total award is in respect of two of the children. That is how the total to which I referred is made up.

Women Prisoners (Police Matrons)

Mr. Gordon Walker: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how far it is the practice in the Metropolitan Police area for a police matron to accompany a woman prisoner in a police conveyance in which male prisoners are also being carried; and what steps are taken to ensure that the practice is observed.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The practice is for a police matron to accompany women prisoners in police conveyances on routes on which women prisoners are regularly carried: and this arrangement is being supplemented by the use of policewomen. The Commissioner is considering whether any further extension is desirable and practicable.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that there will not be a repetition of the incident in which apparently a woman on remand was taken in a black maria alone with a number of male prisoners and without any official—man or woman—present, and was submitted to a great deal of abuse and vilification? This was reported in the Press at the time and I do not think that the report has been contradicted.

Mr. Butler: Some incidents of a similar character which took place in a van between 16th April and 25th May were investigated by the Commissioner. He tells me that all the police officers concerned report that on those journeys no unseemly incidents took place. We shall naturally follow this and, as the right


hon. Gentleman knows, we have taken particular care in the design of vans to see that this kind of thing does not happen.

Mr. Gordon Walker: As there were no police officers present, how do they know that no unseemly incident took place?

Mr. Butler: That is the report which I have received from the Commissioner.

South London Press Office (Police Dogs)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why police dogs were sent recently in the Metropolitan area to the South London Press, where members of printing trade unions were engaged in peaceful picketing; and if, in view of the provocative effect, he will give instructions that police dogs should not be used in such circumstances again.

Mr. Renton: My right hon. Friend is informed by the Commissioner of Police that on the night of 25th June two dogs were taken to a cinema car park at the back of the premises of the South London Press when it was reported that the tyres of cars had been deflated. From time to time since then a dog has been used to patrol the area at night. Dogs have not at any time been used to control pickets.

Mr. Allaun: Is the Minister aware that when the pickets protested to the chief inspector he did not tell them of the incidents which had occurred in another part of the premises and that he threatened to set the dogs on the pickets; that the relations with the police which had been good humoured up to that point suddenly became embittered, and that I possess signed statements to this effect; and that this is the third case I have raised with the Minister of police dogs being sent to gatherings of trade unionists?

Mr. Renton: I was certainly not aware of those facts, and I should be glad if the hon. Gentleman would be good enough to let me have details of the particular cases. I cannot accept his assertion that on this occasion the dogs were used for other than the purpose I have stated. As for the police not mentioning the purpose, it is not usual for them to tell all and sundry when they are trying to trace the commission of an offence.

Chief Constable of Nottingham (Suspension)

Lieut-Colonel Cordeaux: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether a reply has yet been received from the Town Clerk of Nottingham to the letter he caused to be sent to him on 15th July asking the Watch Committee to consider further its decision to suspend the Chief Constable and to inform the Secretary of State for the Home Department as soon as possible of the conclusion at which it arrived; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. R. A. Butler: At the request of the Nottingham Watch Committee I received the Committee and the Town Clerk, who were accompanied by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Nottingham, West (Sir T. O'Brien) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Nottingham, Central (Lieut-Colonel Cordeaux) on 28th July. After discussion, the Committee and I agreed that the suspension of the Chief Constable should not be allowed to continue indefinitely; and that the Committee reach an early conclusion in the matter.

Lieut-Colonel Cordeaux: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply and for the very close study and attention he has given to this deplorable case, may I ask him whether he realises that great distress has been caused to the people of Nottingham as a whole; that we are intensely proud of our police force, which we believe to be second to none; and that we believe Captain Popkess to be one of the most famous policemen in England, with a nation-wide reputation? He has been our Chief Constable for 30 yeas and has been the principal architect in building up the police force there to its present proud position.

Mr. Butler: No one would disagree with the tribute that my hon. and gallant Friend has paid to the police force of the City of Nottingham which is renowned for its efficiency. We all hope that the disagreements and difficulties will be solved as soon as possible. I understand that the Watch Committee is actually meeting today and therefore I would not wish to make any further statement, nor would I wish to detract from the character of any person present or, on this occasion, to pay any particular tributes. The matter had better be left to the Watch Committee to decide.

Mr. Gordon Walker: While we agree very much with the last words of the Home Secretary's statement, is it not the case that in a matter like this in which there is genuine difference of opinion, it is a great pity to try to drag party-political issues into it?

Hon. Members: Oh.

Metropolitan Police (Methods)

Mr. Ledger: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) to what extent there has been an increase during the past two years in the number of representations made to him criticising methods used by the Metropolitan Police;
(2) if his attention has been called to the deteriorating relationship between the Metropolitan Police and the public; and to what extent such deterioration is due to the increase in the volume of representations made to him regarding brutality in police methods;
(3) what plans he has for improving the relationship between the Metropolitan Police and the public; and if he will institute an inquiry into the methods used by the police.

Mr. R. A. Butler: No record is kept of the number of representations which I receive about police methods and I cannot therefore say whether there has been any recent increase I am satisfied, however, that there has been no decline in the standard of conduct of the Metropolitan Police, and I do not propose to institute any enquiry into police methods. The Commissioner of Police, in whom I have complete confidence, has shown in his Annual Report that he is fully alive, as I am, to the need for good relations between the police and the public and to the importance of taking all possible steps to maintain them.

Mr. Ledger: Is the Secretary of State aware that almost exactly a year ago when Sir John Nott-Bower retired as Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Force he gave a warning in an interview on T.V. of the deteriorating relationship between the police and the public? Since then there has been a considerable increase in crime and also an increasing amount of intimidation, to which a considerable amount of publicity has been

given, on the part of the police. Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that in New York, for instance, where intimidation is part and parcel of the methods of the police, there have been eleven times as many murders as in London, forty times as many rapes as in London, and eleven times as many robberies as in London?

Mr. Speaker: Order. With the best will in the world, I cannot allow the hon. Member to make a speech at Question Time. He has already asked the Home Secretary a number of questions.

Mr. Callaghan: In view of the allegations which have been made, is the Home Secretary aware that the Central Committee of the Police Federation, which represents 75,000 junior ranks, has given much consideration to this problem? It has stated that, if there are abuses, it wishes them to be removed and it will co-operate in so doing. It would welcome the opportunity of placing its views before the Home Secretary on some of the difficult matters concerned with the administration of the law of prostitution, betting and gaming, and particularly its difficulties with motorists. Has the Home Secretary received those representations? Is he willing to hear the views of the men on the beat?

Mr. Butler: Yes. I have just received a letter from the Central Committee of the Police Federation, and I am very glad to have this opportunity of saying that I shall be very glad to meet the Committee at a convenient date in the near future. The fact that it has communicated with me, not only on the subjects to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but also on the question of relations between the public and the police, is a good sign, because it shows a sense of great responsibility on behalf of the ranks of the police and a wish that we can go into these things together to do what we can to make relations between the public and the police exactly what both sides wish them to be. I hope that the hon. Member who tabled these Questions will accept that answer to his own representations as indicating the spirit which we wish to prevail.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heath.]

ARABIAN PENINSULA (MILITARY OPERATIONS)

12.3 p.m.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: In July. 1958. I asked the Prime Minister for a White Paper which would give the House a comprehensive picture of the military operations which had been going on in the Arabian Peninsula since 1955. A few weeks later, in August, 1958, the Prime Minister wrote me a letter in which he said that he was grateful for my suggestion and would bear it in mind for the future. But he said:
We have given it very careful consideration. Our view is that a report would only be of value after the operations had been completed so that they could be viewed in perspective and conclusions and lessons drawn from them. We have not yet reached that stage in the Arabian Peninsula.
Therefore, no White Paper.
Four months later, on 6th November, I asked again and received a different answer. The Prime Minister said:
I indicated in some correspondence I had with the right hon. Gentleman this summer that since the campaign in the Oman was finished there was no purpose in publishing the report.
In August the operations had not been completed, so a White Paper would have been premature. In November, they were all over, so a White Paper would do no good. In fact, the operations had not been completed.
On 7th July, three weeks ago, I renewed the suggestion for which the Prime Minister had been grateful a year ago. I received a very curt reply—no White Paper; there would be disadvantages, which the Prime Minister did not name; there would be no advantages. When I asked about the connection of the operations in Oman with drilling by a British company for oil. the Prime Minister thought fit to say:
I entirely repudiate the insinuations which the right hon. Gentleman has made and which I believe to be quite unworthy of him."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th July, 1959; Vol. 608. c. 1112.]
Remembering the Prime Minister's record of candour over Suez, I prefer my own evaluation to his of what is worthy of me.
Therefore, I tabled further Questions, which the Prime Minister transferred to other Ministers. In due course, in

Written Answers, the Paymaster-General refused any information about the oil drilling in Oman—a most extraordinary decision; the Minister of Defence gave me some startling facts about the work of the R.A.F.; the Minister of Defence further told me that the operations in the Peninsula had not been completed, and he used phrases which implied that the present situation may continue indefinitely.
There have been two separate areas of fighting—Oman, and the Yemen-Aden frontier. They form part of one picture, but I will take them separately, and deal with Oman first. Why are the Government reluctant to admit that the Oman operations were connected with oil? Everything in Western Arabia is connected with oil. In 1953, King Saud tried to seize Buraimi. Two British officers were killed. We started an arbitration before an eminent tribunal in Geneva. We broke up the tribunal before it had finished, because, as the Foreign Office said in an official statement on 4th October, 1955, King Saud's agents had offered a local sheikh in Buraimi a bribe of £30 million to keep the British company, the Iraq Petroleum Company, out of the territory and to leave the field free for the American company, Aramco. We broke up the arbitral tribunal, making plain that we thought there might be an immense quantity of oil at stake.
Of course, it was for oil that the military operations in Oman were undertaken. In April of this year a well-known authority, Brigadier Longrigg, set out the basic facts in a full-scale study about the search for oil. In 1937, he said, the Sultan of Oman and Muscat gave two blanket concessions in his sultanate to a subsidiary of the Iraq Petroleum Company. There was prospecting before the war, and after 1948, in the Western Provinces It led to nothing. Then the brigadier says:
In 1954 the company conducted further surveys, and in 1955 decided to drill the Jabal Fahud structure, west of the mountains … Immense difficulties of access were overcome, and drilling began in December, 1956.
Ultimately, the Fahud well was abandoned as a dry hole at 12,250 feet.
whereafter further geophysical survey revealed a second site at Ghaba, eighty-five miles South-East of Fahud, still in Oman. Drilling there started in mid-1958, and by late December had reached nearly 12,275 feet, with negative results.


There were preparations to drill at Fahud in 1954 and 1955. There was actual drilling in 1956. There were preparations at Ghaba in 1957. There was actual drilling from mid-1958 till late December. But there had been interruptions in the work.
In 1955 the Imam of Oman put in vigorous claim to possession of the oil. With his brother Talib he raised the tribesmen and occupied Fahud. Thereupon the Sultan took in a military expedition, drove out the Imam, and thus made it possible for the preparations to proceed.
Mr. James Morris, who is known to hon. Members and who went with the Sultan, wrote a book about the expedition. He said:
The Sultan was our leader; but ultimately responsible for the elimination of the Imam had been the gentlemen of the Foreign Office.
He explains that the Sultan's Minister of External Affairs, Mr. Neil Innes, was British; his Commander-in-Chief was British and his troops were led by British officers. It is inconceivable that the Sultan could have conducted his 1955 expedition without our encouragement and help. Mr. Morris described their arrival at Fahud to visit the oil rig. It was, he said,
a place of understandable interest to the Sultan, who stood to become a multimillionaire because of it … The day for drilling to begin was now very near.
There was no doubt about what the Sultan's expedition was for.
In due course the drilling for oil began, but the Imam and Talib were not finished. In the summer of 1957 they raised a much larger body of supporters, they reoccupied the disputed territory of Oman, and the Sultan's troops were defeated and withdrawn. The Sultan asked for the help of British Forces. The Trucial Oman Scouts, with their British officers were sent in; four companies of Cameron Highlanders, with heavy machine guns and 3 in. mortars; some of the 15/16th Hussars, with Ferret armoured cars; and, of course, the R.A.F. These forces played a much larger part in the actual fighting than had been intended.
On 6th August The Times reported:
British troops advanced today from Fahud … the official communiqué said tonight. This is the first time that it has been acknowledged that any British Forces have

been at Fahud, but with its ready-made airstrip and other facilities resulting from its use as a base of British oil explorations in the past two years, it was suspected that troops might be moved there.
Of course, the Imam's tribesmen could not hold this area against British arms. By 20th August, after three weeks, the Manchester Guardian correspondent in Muscat was able to report that the
convoys of Petroleum Development (Oman) Limited "—
the I.P.C. subsidiary—
which were interrupted by the rising, are once again crossing the desert from Muscat to the drilling site at Fahud.
The drilling went on, but the Imam and Talib took refuge in the Jebel Akdar. It was not until March of this year that they were driven from this fastness, and by that time two troops of Lifeguards had taken part in what The Times described as "fierce fighting," together with a handful of Marines as instructors for our levies. The Marines lost two men killed and four wounded. Thus British troops took an active part for eighteen months in driving the Imam of Oman from the territory of which, up to the oil drilling of 1955, he had been the accepted head.
On what did the Imam base his claim to the oil at Fahud and Ghaba? He based it on a document which has gained notoriety as "The Treaty of Sib". It is well known that the tribes of the hinterland rose against the Sultan of Muscat and Oman in 1913. They elected their own leader, The Imam of Oman. The fighting was protracted, the rebels came near to seizing Muscat itself, and the Sultan was saved from ignominy by the intervention of Great Britain. Peace was restored in 1920 by this Treaty of Sib, negotiated by the British representative in Muscat and initialled by him.
The Foreign Office and the Sultan have consistently refused to publish this Treaty, but when the Arab States sought to raise the Oman question in the United Nations, the editor of the Sunday Times printed the text, saying that it would be of importance in the New York debates. This is the text given in the Sunday Times:
In the name of God, the compassionate, the merciful, This is the peace agreed upon between the Government of the Sultan and Sheik Iso Ibn Salih ibn Ali on behalf of the people of Oman, through the mediation of Mr. Wingate, I.C.S., political agent for Great Britain in Muscat.


Article 4 reads:
The Government of the Sultan shall not grant asylum to any criminal fleeing from the justice of Oman … it shall not interfere in their internal affairs.
I find it difficult to believe that the editor of the Sunday Times would have published this text and would have given it such an introduction unless he had the strongest reasons to believe that it was authentic. The Foreign Office, of course, have a copy, since their agent drew it up, and I invite the Under-Secretary of State to say whether it is authentic or not. In any case, I believe that I am right in saying that the treaty, which established internal autonomy for Oman, worked perfectly for thirty-five years. Until 1955 the Sultan's Government did not interfere in Oman's internal affairs, and there was peace. But then came the hope of oil. The Imam held that oil drilling in Oman Territory was a matter of "internal affairs" belonging to him. The Sultan, hoping to become a multimillionaire, held a contrary view, and we backed the Sultan with British arms.
In view of all that has happened, I think it singularly unfortunate that the Government have suppressed this vital document which has so great a bearing on the legal and the moral aspects of what we have done. I think that it is still more unfortunate that we opposed the discussion of our Oman expedition in the United Nations. In August, 1957, all the Arab nations joined in asking that the Security Council should debate the matter. Their leading spokesman was the delegate of Iraq, that is, of Nuri Pasha, our great ally. But we got Australia, Batista's Cuba and France, our Suez partner, to vote with us; the United States abstained; and the necessary seven votes for the inscription of the item were not obtained. If we had a good case for what we did in Oman, why did we seek to stifle that debate?
Let me turn to the Western side of the Peninsula. Since 1955 there have been constant troubles there—with the tribesmen in our own Protectorates; with the tribal chiefs; with Yemeni tribesmen; and, no doubt, with Yemen Government troops. Let me take some of the incidents of a few weeks early in 1957 which happened to be reported in the Press. On 16th January the Durham Light Infantry—this is 1957—were in action with

mortar fire and supported by rocket attacks from Venom fighters. On 28th January an official Aden communiqué said that 30 "dissident Protectorate tribesmen" were killed by the Cameron Highlanders when they attacked an airfield near Dhala in the Western Aden Protectorate. Artillery was used.
On 3rd February it was reported that the Protectorate village of Hedhiya, which had been occupied by dissidents, had been destroyed; no building remained intact and some of the villagers had been killed. Another village, Sawdanya, had been attacked, substantial damage had been done, and it was still on fire. On 4th or 5th February a British patrol was ambushed near Dhala and two Cameron Highlanders were killed and six wounded. In punishment for this, the village of Danaba, also in the Western Protectorate, was destroyed on 11th February; ninety-six 500 lb. bombs were dropped by Shackletons, and Venom fighters fired seventy-two rockets. It was reported that the bombardment was "unlikely to have left anything inhabitable. "In an action on 15th February near Mishal, also inside the Protectorate, a British officer and a British soldier were killed. This was in January and February of 1957.
The same kind of thing was going on when my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) visited the Territory and went into Yemen in January this year. While he was there, there was an ambush in which British soldiers lost their lives. There was a bombing action in which a British aircraft was shot down and the pilot killed. His own movements were restricted for several days because military operations were going on.
I do not believe that one person in a thousand in this country understands the scale of the fighting in which we are involved. In a Written Answer the Minister of Defence told me a week ago that in six months of 1958 the R.A.F. had carried out 1,300 ground attack sorties—1,300—and had dropped 780 tons of bombs. These figures speak for themselves, and I hope that the House and the public will ponder on them deeply and long.
I know that finding oil is a vital interest, not least for the simple tribesmen in whose land it lies. I do not blame the British company in any way; I do not defend Aramco; least of all do I justify what the Government of the Yemen may


have done to stir up trouble. But I say that it is intolerable that year after year this situation should go on.
Long ago I drew attention in the House to the fact that the Yemen is a member of the United Nations and that if we have a dispute with them we are under a Charter obligation to take it to the Assembly or the Council. I urged that we should ask the United Nations to send out a commission of inquiry to establish the facts about the fighting, to demarcate the frontier in accordance with the Treaty of 1950 and perhaps to send a police force to keep the peace. That proposal was supported in many influential quarters, including editorial articles in the Manchester Guardian and The Times. In February, 1957, the Foreign Secretary said that the Government were "keeping the possibilities" which I had suggested "in mind." Two and a half years later the troubles are just as bad, and the Government apparently have no idea how they can be brought to an end.
Last December, writing of the Oman operations, The Times, in a leading article, said:
In Britain the average citizen is not of course misinformed: he is not informed at all. The main reason for this is the reluctance of the Sultan of Muscat and Oman to allow any news to come out of his country. The British Government's equally reluctant contribution has been two written Parliamentary answers, which have merely confirmed that the rebel Talib and his followers are still at large. … The operations now going on in Oman to ferret out Talib … may well seem small beer, but the public have a right to know what is going on. In the first place, it is not small beer to the British troops involved In the second place, official silence leaves the field clear for the propagandists of Cairo.
This applies no less to the operations on the Aden side of the Peninsula. We ought to have the White Papers for which I have so often asked. But we also need new policies, both in East and West. In July, 1957, The Times special correspondent in Bahrain spoke of the disastrous interplay of power diplomacy, Arab nationalism, oil interests and modern communications. He said that we must find some better way of keeping law and order than by unilateral military action. In repeated messages from Oman and from Aden responsible correspondents have said that bombing as a routine police weapon is obsolete, that
the use of modern aircraft against primitive tribesmen is disquieting,

and that events in the Peninsula are doing our prestige and our influence the greatest harm.
I ask the Government to think again about these things. I ask them to give us full information about the present and the past. I ask them to find new policies for the future that do not rest on the exclusive, the naked and the protracted use of force.

12.25 p.m.

Mr. William Yates: I am very glad that the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker) has raised this extremely important subject. I have been a member of this House for four years, during which I have devoted my attention to Anglo-Arab relations and to the Middle East in general. I have always disliked the proposition that one must be either pro-Arab or pro-Israeli. That shows a fundamental misunderstanding of international politics. Like many hon. Members on this side of the House, I am pro-peace, pro-common sense and pro-progress in that part of the world. By that we mean the distribution of some of the wealth into the homes of the great majority of the peoples in the area.
The problem of the Trucial sheikdoms has been raised. I do not believe that people in this country are even today aware that three-quarters of the world's proven reserves of oil are in the Arabian Peninsula. Should any crisis happen at Kuwait or Bahrein during the coming years, we should be faced within 48 hours with a balance of payments crisis too enormous to contemplate. Therefore, we are dealing with a subject for which I hope Her Majesty's Government will consider fixing a new policy.
It is all very well to make these comments, but I should also make some suggestions. I have three points to put to the Minister and I hope that he will convey them to the Prime Minister. First, it is essential that Her Majesty's Government re-open both diplomatic and commercial relations with Saudi Arabia. Secondly, it is likewise essential that they reconsider their political, diplomatic and commercial relations with the United Arab Republic. Thirdly, I suggest that it may now be time to consider the appointment of a Royal Commission to go into the question of the Trucial sheikhdoms and to re-examine again the


treaty arrangements which we have with the sheikhs in that area.
It seems to me that all the time we are hanging on to old worn-out ideas. We ought to be offering new ones. In that area we see new wine being offered in old bottles which are bursting in our faces. I hope that the Government will now take a very serious view of the situation in Oman and Muscat and find a more proper policy for Great Britain.
The last thing I wish to say is to you, Mr. Speaker. We may not reassemble here again with you, Sir, in the Chair, when I would have the opportunity of occupying the Floor, so I wish to take this opportunity to say, on behalf of the 48,000 constituents whom I have the honour to represent, that to my mind this has been a great and momentous Parliament of which you, Sir, have been a very great and memorable Speaker. When you are called to leave this House I am sure that the Mother of Parliaments will be very sorry, and on behalf of my constituents I offer to you their very best wishes in your retirement.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much.

12.30 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Hugh Fraser): I am sure that we should all wish to join in a humble way in the gracious tribute paid to you, Mr. Speaker, by my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates).
I only hope that my hon. Friend will continue to be a Member of this House after the next General Election, as I am sure he will, and be able to continue to distil the wine of oratory which he has so generously distributed in our debates.
We have had an interesting debate and I have been asked a variety of questions. But, as the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker) will understand, I must stick to my brief, which is to answer the debate on military operations in the Arabian Peninsula.
I think it important to get some of the rather acid comments which the right hon. Gentleman has delivered into proper perspective. To do that I think it right to go back and see what our obligations are. These, of course, vary enormously. But right from the head of the Persian Gulf round to Aden—a distance of nearly

2,500 miles by sea—we have a series of special relationships, of friendships and of treaties, some of which are more than 150 years old. Our agreements with the States in the Aden Protectorate, for instance, range in date from 1802 to 11th February of this year.
I find it strange, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman should, today and in the past, have tried to attribute recent British military support given to some of the rulers in the Aden Protectorate or to the Sultan of Muscat or to the ruler of Abbu Dubhai, solely to our oil interests in that area. Of course, such interests are important, but I think of far greater importance are the ancient connections of this country with these States; connections stretching back as they do through the years when this area was—as, indeed, it still is—a bridge between Asia and Africa and a bastion on the Indian Ocean. Hon. Members who have been to Mombasa even today can see one of the finest sights in the world, the dhow fleet sailing down from the Persian Gulf into that great harbour.
It has always been the duty of British Governments to stand by their pledges to the rulers of this area. I would remind the House that right hon. and hon. Members opposite have not been backward in performing this proper rôle. As late as 1930 the party opposite, which was then in office, quite properly, at the request of the Sultan of Muscat, sent two of His Majesty's ships, in company with a gunboat of His Highness the Sultan, to bombard the Musandam Peninsula to compel the surrender of a Sheik of Khasab who had defied the Sultan's authority. This, then, has been and will be the policy of Her Majesty's Governments—to give support to our friends when they call for it in the Arabian Peninsula.
The right hon. Member for Derby, South raised one specific point about the Agreement of Sib. He questioned the legality of our aiding the Sultan of Muscat against the rebellious forces of Talib and others. As the Foreign Secretary has pointed out, the Agreement signed at Sib in 1920 was one under which the tribes were given some autonomy, but that this did not in any way detract from the sovereignty of the Sultan over the area. The right hon. Gentleman has gone further and asked that we should publish this agreement. I see no cause whatever to do so, nor, as the agreement solely


concerned the internal affairs of an independent sovereign State, can I see that it is for Her Majesty's Government to publish or even to comment on it.
This Agreement in no way detracts from the Sultan's sovereignty over Muscat and Oman. I therefore think that what we have done and the policy we are pursuing is right, and should have the support of this House as it has of our friends along the Trucial coast in Muscat and Aden and in the Protectorate. It is the simplest and best policy of all to give support and succour to our friends.
My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin raised several points which are outside my province. First, the question of arrangements and negotiations with Saudi Arabia and negotiations with the Egyptian Government. As he knows, we are endeavouring to restore a proper relationship with the Government of Egypt. My hon. Friend suggested that there should be a review by a Royal Commission of the various treaty arrangements spreading round the whole of the Arabian Peninsula. Again, that is a question for my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Foreign Office to answer. My own reaction is that a Royal Commission would be the wrong sort of body to investigate this matter. There is an endless process of negotiation with the various rulers. In this very year, for instance, we have made an agreement with the new Federation of the Emirates of the South and he will know that during the last two or three years other commercial treaties have been initiated.
This cannot be regarded, as the hon. Gentleman endeavoured to regard it, as a united area. It is, essentially and naturally, Balkanised into a large number of states and for that reason it is as impossible to put forward an over-all policy as it is for the British Commonwealth. There is an immense variety of differences in this huge land mass and in these States which cover great distances.
The right hon. Member for Derby, South and others have tried to give the impression that all these activities in support of our friends have been cloaked in an atmosphere of secrecy. But I think that on no occasion, except when military operations were pending, has the House been denied information. On

Aden, the Aden Protectorates and Aden Colony there have been a large number of Answers to Questions and a statement by my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary as well as by Ministers responsible for Service Departments
Regarding other areas of operations, I would refer the House to the statement made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary on Muscat and Oman in July, 1957. I would, further, refer the House to the information given in the Memoranda accompanying the Service Estimates in February of this year. I can see, therefore, no case for the publication of a White Paper on military operations in the area as suggested by the right hon. Gentleman on 17th July, 1958. I can only echo the words of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the letter which he sent to the right hon. Gentleman at that time, in his Answer on 6th November, 1958, and his reply given in this House on 7th July this year As the Prime Minister said then, he saw little advantage in cataloguing a large number of operations over a very wide territory with no particular relation one to another.
To expand this point further, I think that it would be very difficult to find a firm thread running through the various operations over the last four or five years in areas as disparate as the Jebel Akahdar in Muscat, the Buraimi Oasis, or Sarir Fort on the Jebel Jahif, in the West Aden Protectorate. These incidents are separated by vast geographical distances, by years in time and by circumstances none of which are common or applicable one to another.
Perhaps, however, it would be of benefit to the House if I ran through the variety of military operations which have taken place in the Arabian Peninsula over the last four years. Hon. Members opposite may, of course, have been impressed—although I do not think so—by the propaganda from Radio Cairo. I will make one quotation from the "Voice of the Arabs" on 17th June of this year, where it was stated, with regard to operations in the Peninsula, though these ceased some months before, that
… the British are using about 1,000 military aircraft … together with a force of 150,000 men … There is an aircraft-carrier off the coast between Muscat and Bahrein … These


are the facts of the situation in Oman which, in short, we hand as a gift to the British Daily Worker.
I am sure that neither the right hon. Gentleman nor any of his hon. Friends would wish to add fuel to those foolish flames.
At the height of the operation in January, 1959, against the rebels on the Jebel Akhdar, the maximum number of British troops engaged was under 300. This action was ably described in The Times in the early summer of this year, and I gave some description of it in the debate on the Army Estimates. Of course, there have been in the Aden Protectorate and in the Federation of Emirates of the South occasional and sporadic sorties against Yemeni forces attacking those State rulers, our friends, who do not recognise the Yemeni claim to sovereignty over them. In the early months of 1957 and 1958, these sorties reached a considerable pitch but, at the moment, I am glad to say that, due in no small part to our military actions, Yemeni pressure has relaxed.
But apart from these, I think that it is worth noting certain specific operations. In September, 1957, an operation was mounted to clear out the Yemenis who had been occupying the Jebel Dhahat-Shaquier features. This operation was supported by the Royal Air Force. In April, 1958, in Lahej, a force including British infantry was alerted to guard against possible disturbances in connection with the arrest of the Jifri brothers. In April, 1958, at Jebel Jahif, the Sarir Fort was besieged by about 500 dissident tribesmen, and an attack was, therefore, mounted to clear the area.
Turning further eastward, to Muscat and Oman, since 1955—I do not look back beyond 1955—we have from time to time assisted the Sultan in the training and organisation of his forces and by the loan of personnel and equipment. I should like, here, to pay tribute to those British Service men who have volunteered to help make the Sultan's Army an effective military force in conditions of grave discomfort, with temperatures which are scarcely believable, in areas as barren as barren areas can be.
In 1957 and 1958, we mounted operations to quell rebellious tribesmen of the ex-Imam of Oman and his brother Talib,

to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred. After due warning, the Royal Air Force gave support by attacking forts in the dissident area. Leaflets were dropped on behalf of the Sultan. This operation resulted in the rebels being driven up the Jebel Akhdar, an inaccessible mountain region rising to about 8,000 to 9,000 ft. From December, 1958, to February, 1959, British forces, including elements of the Life Guards and the Special Air Service Regiment, assisted the Sultan's armed forces in clearing the rebels from the Jebel Akhdar. The Royal Air Force assisted, and I think that proper tribute has been paid in the newspapers of this country to this brilliant operation successfully carried out with very few British casualties.
All these things have been referred to in the House and on all of them, the Government have, quite properly, been prepared to answer, and have answered, questions unless points of military security came in.
Let me now turn to the area further north, in Buraimi. Between October and November, 1955, an operation was mounted by the forces of the Sultan of Muscat and the Ruler of Abbu Dubhai in conjunction with the Trucial Oman Scouts—an excellent force largely officered by British officers, created in 1951 with prescience and wisdom by the late Labour Government—to remove the Saudi forces in the Oasis. As the House will remember, this operation was entirely successful and met the general acclaim of the House and of our friends around the Persian Gulf.
Now a word about air and sea forces. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence has explained to the right hon. Gentleman that, of course, in this area air forces have a very special part to play. In an area of great size, with incidents widely scattered, bombing, after due warning, is obviously a most effective means of dealing with trouble. The wisdom of this policy has been proved by its effectiveness. Over these vast distances, the Royal Air Force has a most important logistic rôle in ferrying, in carrying stores, and in occasional military operations. About 5,000 tons of freight were carried in the period of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke. The Navy, too, has played an important


rôle, not least in providing patrol assistance to the Sultan of Muscat against the smuggling of arms.
These operations, which have all been successful, covered, as I said, a huge area. Between one and the other, except, of course, the two operations in Muscat, there cannot be seen any close geographical, political or economic link. They have all been operations on a small scale. They have all been operations about which the House has been given proper information when it asked for it. As I have said, only one thing has held us back at moments and that has been the question of military security.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for having raised this subject. Only in putting undue emphasis on oil interests and not paying sufficient attention to the historic connection, in global and strategic matters and in friendship, between this country and those States, was his speech not as helpful as it could have been. I wish to conclude by paying a tribute, in which I am sure we can all join, to the skill and devotion to duty of our forces throughout the area, whose presence safeguards the peace and makes a major contribution to security in this part of the Eastern world.
If further detail is needed, my right hon Friend the Minister of Defence will consider affording further information on any particular operation. Seeing things as a whole, however, this is a huge area, divided by mountains, desert and the vast empty quarter. It is politically disparate and regionally enmeshed in a most complicated and changing pattern of tribal loyalties. All operations have been on a small scale; British forces involved never amounted to more than a few hundred; nothing that could be called an organised campaign, except in Muscat and Oman, on which the House has been fully informed, and which itself was a very small affair. Otherwise, there has been nothing but sporadic incidents arising from an unsettled situation on a long frontier, the definition of which has never been accepted by the Yemenis.
Nothing, therefore, has happened which it would be appropriate to describe in a special dispatch or White Paper. The House will continue to be informed from time to time of any matters of general interest affecting the situation in

those parts of the Arabian Peninsula where Her Majesty's Government have defence responsibilities. The maintenance of peace and order in this vastness is .1 continuing, necessary and honourable process, and, as I think I have shown, a process in which every Government elected in this country must engage.

HOSPITAL, MID-CHESHIRE

12.47 p.m.

Mr. John Foster: The people of mid-Cheshire will be grateful for having this opportunity, through me, to raise the matter of hospital facilities in mid-Cheshire. The area concerned is that included, roughly, in the urban districts of Middlewich, Wins-ford and Northwich and the rural district of Northwich. I wish to ask my hon. Friend whether he can give us any help in obtaining the erection of a hospital to serve the area of mid-Cheshire.
The need has been very well established. In the first place, the county council has supported the local authorities of Middlewich, Winsford and Northwich in their endeavours, over three or four years, to have such a hospital erected. I will quote from a letter from the medical officer of health for the county which, I think, shows the very great need for such a hospital in the area. The county medical officer wrote to the Northwich Urban District Council on 26th November, 1957, saying that he was interested to know that the councils in mid-Cheshire had banded together to try to persuade the regional hospital board to provide an additional general hospital in the area. He was, he said, very happy to support their endeavours and he reminded them that, if it had not been for the passing of the 1946 Act under which this activity was transferred to the regional hospital board, the county council would, in his opinion,
undoubtedly have put forward proposals to the Minister to erect a new general hospital on the Lines of Clatterbridge, to serve the mid-Cheshire and surrounding areas.
He gives his opinion of the present accommodation, saying,
At the present time"—
this was as long ago as November, 1957—
the hospitals in mid-Cheshire are small, and when the accommodation is added together it is totally inadequate for the area.


He says that the best evidence is provided by the ambulance service which does the biggest mileage in the county, by far the greater part of which is due to the long distances over which patients have to be conveyed to hospital for both in-patient and out-patient treatement. He says that the hospitals are over 12 miles away from the ambulance station, and he adds that
undoubtedly there is an urgent need for hospital provision for the chronic sick in mid-Cheshire.
The facts about the provision of an ambulance service are very serious. No fewer than 85 hospitals are visited by patients in the mid-Cheshire area. The total mileage of the ambulance service is 200,000. It will be appreciated that when patients have to travel these long distances they must be assembled in parties of four to six people. They have to wait a good many hours before the ambulance is filled and it may be that they are going to the hospital only for the very briefest treatment. Perhaps the treatment might last for only five or ten minutes, but the patients have had to waste the greater part of the day, and some people from remote rural areas in this district may have to spend the whole day going to a hospital in Manchester to have five minutes' treatment. In the case of those going for a longer visit to the hospital, those who may have to be hospitalised, it is difficult for relatives to visit them.
The regional hospital board itself recognises the need for a new hospital. In a letter dated 17th September, the secretary of the board wrote to the Northwich Urban District Council saying:
The Committee requested me to inform you that the Board are aware of the need for development of the hospital services in the mid-Cheshire area and that they have already requested the local Planning Authority to reserve land in this area as a site for a new hospital at a future date. Whilst the Board have in mind, therefore, the need for a new general hospital … it is not quite correct to say that the hospital has been 'programmed'.
It is true that a site has been reserved at Davenham. It is intended to use 11½ acres as a site for the new hospital.
As I understand, the procedure is that in cases where the finance exceeds £250,000 the regional hospital board has to put forward a scheme of this sort to the Minister when he calls for schemes

for what are called central financing. The disappointment of the council, about which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary knows, stems, I think, from the fact that the board was asked by the Ministry, following a meeting of the council with the Minister earlier this year, whether it would like to add the hospital for mid-Cheshire to its existing programme of works for central financing and, if so, whether it would like it to be ahead of other schemes or at the end of schemes which had already been put forward. Very disappointingly, from the council's point of view, the board said that it would wait until it was asked for the next lot of schemes to be centrally financed. In other words, it did not propose to add it to the existing schemes to be financed by the Ministry of Health but would wait until the Minister called for a new programme.
This was especially disappointing as there had been a letter from the board in 1957 to the Northwich Urban District Council saying that it had reserved the site and that the Minister was in the habit of asking for a programme for central financing every year, therefore giving the impression that the board was likely to put this scheme into the central financing programme the next time it was asked. It appears that after 1957 there was another central financing programme. On this occasion, too, the board did not include the proposal for this hospital in the programme.
The object of my raising this matter is to impress on my hon. Friend the need for a new hospital in this area in Cheshire. There are other factors of which perhaps my hon. Friend is not altogether aware. At the moment we have an excellent small hospital at Northwich, the Victoria Infirmary. Being small, it naturally does not have the facilities of a larger hospital. For instance, it is not equipped to have a resident doctor. Unfortunately, like all areas in this country, there are many road accidents in this area and I suppose that the Victoria Infirmary gets road accident casualties from within a radius of ten miles of the infirmary. There are some very important and dangerous roads in the area, like the Manchester—Chester road, which runs very near to Northwich.
Road casualties are continually coming into the Victoria Infirmary. When they


arrive, the infirmary has to call up the doctor who is on call and who has other demands on his time. He may be out dealing with another case, and the hospital then has to call on the next doctor. Inevitably, with the best will in the world and in spite of all-round efficiency, the result sometimes is that the injured cannot be dealt with as quickly as their injuries perhaps demand. What I am afraid of is that one day somebody may lose his life through not being attended to in time.
If there were a proper general hospital in the area it would have all the resident doctors, specialists and apparatus that it would need. As it is, the skilled and devoted matron and nurses of the Victoria Infirmary, who have very great knowledge, deal with the casualties when they come in. I have been visiting the hospital when some casualties have come in, and the staff deals with them very well indeed, but I am afraid that one day special medical attention will be needed which will not be forthcoming.
A questionnaire was sent out to the doctors in the area. Of the twenty-eight doctors who answered, twenty-four said that the hospital facilities in the area were not sufficient. All twenty-eight said that a general hospital would meet the need of the area.
Let me illustrate the need in a little more detail. The Manchester Regional Hospital Board, which, as I have said, is the authority to put forward this proposal for a general hospital, held a meeting on 24th September, 1957. I have here the minutes of the meeting. The board was in possession of a schedule of the various areas most in need of further hospital facilities, from the point of view of having additional medical beds. North and mid-Cheshire are grouped together. The minutes show that the north and mid-Cheshire area has only 11 medical beds per 100,000 of population. Of the other areas also in need of extra hospital beds, Preston and Chorley has 30, nearly three times as many as north and mid-Cheshire. There are five other areas which are allocated up to 48 beds per 100,000 of population in need of additional hospital beds. The mere evidence of this figure, 11 per 100,000, shows how great is the need in this area for medical beds.
I should now like to deal with general surgery beds. Here again, north and mid-Cheshire are most deficient, although the difference between it and the runners up is only 7 per 100,000 instead of 19 per 100,000. North and mid-Cheshire have 34 general surgery beds per 100,000 of population. The other six areas in greatest need of extra surgical beds have as many as 62 beds per 100,000. In orthopaedic surgery, north and mid-Cheshire are third in the list of deficiency, while in gynaecology beds they are sixth or seventh in need and come towards the end of the table. The board is reported as having in mind a new hospital eventually near Northwich to serve the southern end of this group in central Cheshire.
I would like, in conclusion, to impress upon my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary the need for this facility in mid-Cheshire and the fact that it has excited a great deal of local interest. I understand that arrangements are being made to get up a petition to the Minister and the matter has attracted a great deal of attention in the local Press. It is felt by all the doctors, the medical officers of health and the councillors of the local districts that the need is a real one. While they appreciate that they are not in a position to weigh the need of one district as being higher than another, because they do not have the facts in their possession, it is difficult for them to imagine that any other district under the Manchester Regional Hospital Board is in such need as the mid-Cheshire district. The need has existed for some years and the fact that a site has been reserved, and the medical officers and doctors in the area have given the answers to which I have referred, shows that the need is great.
I am asked by the councils to thank the Ministry for the courteous reception they had at a meeting earlier in the year and to urge not only upon my hon. Friend, but, through him, the regional hospital board, the urgent need for the establishment of this general hospital. As is shown in the correspondence, even if it were decided today to proceed with the scheme, it would probably be three years from the making of the decision until the hospital was erected. Therefore, for another three years at least, this great need must continue, with danger to


patients and great inconvenience, which spreads to their relatives.
The figures show that about one person in eleven took an ambulance journey in the district in the past year. All these people are visited by their relatives and one can realise the general dislocation and frustration in the area. In many cases, the bus services to get to Stalybridge, Manchester, Crewe and Liverpool are not sufficiently adequate for these visits, having regard to the visiting hours.
I know the sympathetic nature of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and that he recognises a need when he sees one. I urge him to do all he can to induce the regional hospital boards to put up a scheme to him for central financing. To satisfy the needs of the area, it is necessary that it should be treated as a matter of urgency.

1.3 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel W. H. Bromley-Davenport: I support my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster), who has put the case so clearly and fairly and with his customary eloquence. This agitation for the provision of better hospital services in mid-Cheshire has been going on for several years. The position, as the doctors have reported and as we all know, is that the patients who have to be treated from mid-Cheshire are forced to attend hospitals in Manchester, Liverpool, Chester, Warrington, Macclesfield and Altrincham. Tremendous distances, therefore, have to be covered. We all wonder whether there are any other districts in the country whose people are scattered over 85 hospitals for treatment. At the moment, there is no sign of any proposed hospital being built. What is even worse and causes such anxiety in mid-Cheshire is that there is hardly any sign that anybody is even thinking of building one.
The Minister has said that it is a matter for the Manchester Regional Hospital Board to decide and the board states that it is a matter for settlement when the Minister calls for further proposals for central financing. This is a clear case of passing the buck backwards and forwards, which is supposed to be a rather favourite pastime for public servants. The Cheshire public

are getting fed up and feeling is very strong.
We Cheshire Members have been in close touch with the local authorities in the district, who have made strenuous efforts to obtain better hospitals. As a final gesture, they have asked us to persuade the Minister to hold an inquiry, because such an inquiry would clearly show what bad hospital service mid-Cheshire has. All of us, however, have received the same reply from my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister refusing to hold an inquiry. Therefore, the people of mid-Cheshire feel that they will have to go on suffering.
This is no new problem. Attention was drawn to it years ago and the situation is getting worse. All we ask is that an inquiry should be held at top level. There is also a feeling of deep frustration in the area. The people look at the hospital building programmes all over the country, which show that expenditure is increasing rapidly each year and next year will be double what it was three years ago.
Why cannot the people in Mid-Cheshire have their share? Is it not about time that they should be next on the list for better hospital services? What a wonderful record this Government have. The Socialists did not build any hospitals at all between 1945 and 1951, but since the Conservatives have got in, the first parts of four new hospitals are in use in England and Wales and work is in progress on ten more new hospitals. In addition, 40 large schemes involving new units or major extensions are in progress and more are being planned. Many other smaller schemes are under way or completed. These include new laboratories, operating theatres, X-ray equipment and improved out-patient and casualty departments. Already, the benefits are showing in at least 100 hospitals at a cost of £7 million. Cannot mid-Cheshire have a fair slice out of this huge national cake?
I end this plea on a personal note. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Health has a record which is, possibly, second to none amongst his colleagues and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is his ardent lieutenant. After the election, when the


Conservatives are returned with an increased majority, he is bound to be promoted. Before he leaves his Department, however, what mid-Cheshire would like to see would be my right hon. and learned Friend crowning his brilliant record by saying, first, that he will hold an inquiry and, secondly, stating publicly that he realises the great hardship in mid-Cheshire and that he will give an early priority to improving the hospital service in that area.
The last thing that the people of mid-Cheshire want to see is this country living beyond its means. Overspending of the taxpayers' money is a favourite pastime of the Socialist Party. All we ask is that a fair slice of the National Health Service cake should be given to the central area of our lovely county of Cheshire.

1.10 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Richard Thompson): First, I must thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Knutsford (Lieut-Colonel Bromley-Davenport) for raising this matter and so ably arguing the undoubted and acknowledged needs of their area. In doing this they have simply followed up the numerous and pertinacious representations which they have made in correspondence with me and my right hon. and learned Friend, and also the representations made by the local authorities in the area to my right hon. and learned Friend and to the Manchester Regional Hospital Board.
I should like to give a short account of the recent history of this matter. The local authorities concerned, the Northwich, Winsford and Middlewich Urban District Councils and the Northwich Rural District Council, set up a joint committee with the object of taking all necessary steps to ensure the provision of adequate general hospital facilities in the area. It is from that point that I want to trace the course of events.
On 13th May, 1958, a deputation from this body was received by the regional hospital board. I am told that the board informed the deputation that it fully appreciated the need for additional

hospital developments which the deputation was seeking in mid-Cheshire. But at the time the Board could not finance a new hospital out of its own capital allocation. Therefore, the project would probably have to be considered for inclusion in the programme of major schemes selected on a national basis by my right hon. and learned Friend. On the next occasion when the Board had the opportunity to put forward a list of schemes for this purpose it would give very serious consideration to the mid-Cheshire case.
The local authorities, however, thought that the matter was one for the Minister and they sought an interview with him. A deputation was received by officers of the Department in November, 1958. It was pointed out to it that the regional board had not included this project in the list of schemes which it had submitted to my right hon. and learned Friend in June, 1958. I want to make the point, so that there will be no misunderstanding about it, that this does not imply any bad faith on the part of the regional board. These boards have had delegated to them the responsibility for planning hospital services in their regions. It follows that it is their duty from time to time to review the relevant urgency and importance of capital developments proposed throughout the regions under their control. This, of course, is a most unenviable and thankless task, particularly when one thinks of the conflicting demands for urgent developments in a region which has a population of 4,379,000 which extends from Windermere in the north to Crewe in the south, and which has 200 hospitals and clinics most of which could make out a claim for a certain amount of improvement.
I am sure that the Manchester Regional Board, in that kind of situation, is doing an honest job of trying to get the priorities right and, of course, it cannot please everybody on the way. When the board was invited in 1958 by my right hon. and learned Friend to submit a list of major schemes for inclusion in the programme, it was its conclusion, after weighing up all the circumstances, that certain other schemes, particularly the second phases of schemes already started, had a greater degree of urgency. This was a hard and difficult decision to


take, but the board felt it to be the right one at the time and that explains how it was that the mid-Cheshire scheme did not come forward in 1958.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Does not all this add up to the fact that there is not sufficient allocation of money for the Manchester Regional Board to do what is reasonable?

Mr. Thompson: No, I would not agree at all. We are never likely to agree that any sum of public money is sufficient for the schemes that we have in mind, but, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Knutsford has said, the actual capital available next year will be double what it was three years ago.
The situation was explained to a deputation which visited the Ministry last November. The deputation then said that it would seek a further interview with the board. The views expressed by the deputation were transmitted to the board which was asked whether it wished to add a new hospital for mid-Cheshire to the list of major schemes which it had already submitted and, in particular, whether it wished this project to be ranked in priority after the schemes already submitted or to take precedence over any one of them. The board, however, felt that it should hold its hand until it had received the expected further approach from the local authorities.
This meeting with the local authorities took place on 10th March of this year. I understand that the local authorities were particularly anxious to receive some indication as to when a new hospital might be selected by the board for submission to my right hon. and learned Friend. As I have told my hon. Friends in correspondence, the board felt that it was not right for it to give any undertaking, since at that time—and I stress "that time"—it could not say how soon it might be asked to submit further proposals, and it felt that it should keep itself free to assess the priorities in its region afresh when the time came. I think that decision was right.
So far, I have been dealing with events up to the time when I wrote to

my hon. Friends on 26th May. My hon. Friends will be glad to know, however, that a new hospital for mid-Cheshire was included among a list of schemes which the regional board submitted to my right hon. and learned Friend on 23rd June, and we shall thus be able to give consideration to this proposal when my right hon. and learned Friend is next considering the addition of schemes to the special major schemes programme.
I am sure that it will be understood that at this stage I cannot give any precise undertaking that this project will be selected on the next occasion, but it will certainly be considered, and I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will bear in mind the very cogent arguments forcefully put forward today. I am certain also that this submission is an important stage in the progress of the scheme and a definite advance on the situation which existed up to a few weeks ago.
I have devoted my attention mainly to the question of a new hospital, which was the principal issue raised by my hon. Friends. The need for it stems from the fact that mid-Cheshire itself does not contain sufficient hospital beds—

Mr. J. Foster: With a growing population.

Mr. Thompson: As my hon. Friends have said, numbers of patients living in the area have, willy-nilly, had to go to hospitals some distance away, but I would not have thought that the small hospitals in the area are not doing their bit. They have put up a very good show indeed.
It has not been possible to make major additions to these hospitals, but the regional board has done all it can to improve them. For example, at Davenham Hospital the isolation block has been converted to form a maternity unit, and a new physiotherapy and X-ray department has been provded at the Victoria Infirmary.
Generally speaking, the mid-Cheshire hospitals have had a fair share of the capital moneys available for developments in the group as a whole. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich mentioned specially the need for full-time medical staff at the Victoria


Infirmary. I am glad to tell him that the regional hospital board, after consultation with the hospital management committee, has decided to appoint a junior hospital medical officer to this hospital.
The precise range of duties of the post are being discussed now with the general practitioners who form the present staff, and the board has also recently authorised the appointment of a junior hospital medical officer at Grange Hospital, where it is intended to admit a larger proportion of medical cases to permit more surgical cases to be treated at the Victoria Infirmary.
That, then, is the picture. I hope that the information I have given to my hon. Friend, that a new hospital for mid-Cheshire is among the schemes submitted to my right hon. and learned Friend for consideration, will prove acceptable at this stage. I am grateful for the constructive interest they have shown in this project, which, I recognise, is of undoubted and growing importance to the people they have the honour to represent in this House.

SCOTLAND (PAPER-MAKING INDUSTRY)

1.21 p.m.

Mr. John Taylor: The subject of this brief debate is the European Free Trade Agreement and the paper-making industry in Scotland. The purpose is to extract from the Government, if possible, a clear statement of their intentions. This will be a very short debate and several of my hon. Friends who, like myself, represent constituencies containing paper mills in Scotland, are hoping to catch your eye, Sir, to make brief contributions. Therefore, it seems to be my responsibility also to be brief in order that they may possibly have a chance to do so. Consequently I have not time for sketching in any background, but in any case the background is already known to the President of the Board of Trade and to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Also, in a recent debate on industry and employment in Scotland my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) and Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton), who are in their places on these benches today, have also

endeavoured to pursue it in questions. So far, however, we have not received any satisfactory answer to the direct question whether the Government intend to encourage any safeguarding arrangements for this important British industry or whether they regard it as expendable. Was any attempt made in the Stockholm talks to put the point of view of the British paper and board-making industry to the Scandinavian Governments?
The White Paper, Cmnd. 823, which has been published since we tabled a request for this debate, entitled "Stockholm Draft Plan for a European Free Trade Association", gives not the slightest indication that the industry was even mentioned during the talks. There is not a word in the White Paper about the industry. There are special arrangements to protect Danish agricultural products and there is a proposal submitted by the Norwegians to protect fresh and frozen fish and other products.
These industries are of special importance to the countries concerned and we can readily understand and appreciate that the alert and efficient Governments of those countries defended the economic interests of their citizens. The industry most likely to be severely affected in Britain by E.F.T.A. is the paper making industry. There is no other major industry in Britain which is likely to be affected to such an extent as this one, and it seems unbelievable that the British Government made no attempt to secure a quid pro quo by negotiating an arrangement to safeguard the industry.
The exploitation of the United Kingdom market for paper must have been uppermost in the minds of the Scandinavian Governments, and in particular of the Swedish Government, as the outstanding potential advantage to them of the E.F.T.A., particularly when previous markets in the European Economic Community, in the countries of the Six, are becoming increasingly closed to them. Therefore, we want to know on behalf of our constituents employed in the industry—there are 17,000 of them in Scotland alone—and on behalf of the good firms who have undertaken heavy capital investment to modernise their plant, equipment and premises, what steps did the Government take or do they propose to take to safeguard the future of these jobs and investments?
Why does the White Paper contain no mention of any British proposal to lay down such safeguards? Did the Government, in fact, take such steps? Did they table any such proposals? Do they intend to do so? These are important questions and the answer vitally affects the jobs and the security and the future of thousands of our people. It is possible, I should think it is highly probable, that the President of the Board of Trade will direct our attention to paragraphs 19 to 23 inclusive of the White Paper which deal with difficulties in special sectors. I will read paragraph 19, because it is necessary that we should have an explanation of what it means. It says:
If a Member experiences difficulties in a particular sector of industry or a particular region, and there is an appreciable rise in unemployment in that sector or region resulting from a spectacular decrease in internal demand for the domestic product because of imports from other Members, the Member concerned shall be able to take certain protective measures. Any such measures shall be applied non-discriminatorily to all Members, and Members should not be treated less favourably than third countries.
Obviously the paper and board industry is
a particular sector of industry
and an important sector of industry in Britain. Obviously that sector will experience difficulties if E.F.T.A. is operating. Obviously these difficulties will be more severely felt in Scotland, where the paper-making industry is a major one. Obviously the comparative effect in Scotland as a whole of E.F.T.A. will be disadvantageous because the advantageous results of the association will be in those manufacturing industries of which Scotland has not a normal share.
The White Paper seems to me to say that if an industry is so hard hit that it is in danger of collapse, the Government may take certain unspecified "protective measures". What exactly is in the minds of the Government and the other countries? What protective measures have they in view? Why not take protective measures before the industry suffers? Why not take them now before things go too far? The only way effective protective measures can be taken is by inserting in the Agreement a safeguarding section for the paper-making industry, as has been pro-

posed for Danish bacon, for Norwegian fish and in the special steps to protect Portuguese interests.
The matter is urgent. We must have the assurance today. Parliament will be rising in three hours' time from now and will be dispersed for three months. In our absence the Government may present us with a fait accompli. They may have ratified the Agreement, or at any rate, may have gone too far with it, and so put themselves beyond hope of retrenchment, which would be disastrous to an industry built up with efficiency and pride in our own country and in our own constituencies.
The next Government will not, of course, get rid of this Agreement. They will probably strengthen it, but if it has gone too far and we have the difficulty of inserting a clause into the Agreement which has already been made, it will be a long and difficult process. I ask this Government and I plead with the President of the Board of Trade to give us an assurance today, at this eleventh hour, that they will do their duty by this industry and by those who work in it.

1.31 p.m.

Sir James Duncan: Like the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Lothian (Mr. J. Taylor), I want to be brief. Therefore, I will try to make my speech in almost telegraphic form. I do not share altogether the fears of the hon. Gentleman, but I recognise that the employment position in Scotland is much more sensitive than it is in England. I do not complain in the least that hon. Gentlemen opposite have raised this question today for that reason. With double the rate of unemployment in Scotland to that in England, any action that might increase that unemployment in a particular trade to benefit the United Kingdom as a whole is bound to be looked at with some care by Scottish Members.
I have a paper mill at the edge of my constituency and I received a letter from those concerned in it when they first heard about this proposal. I think that they got the wrong end of the stick and exaggerated the fears that were expressed in the letter they sent to me, because they thought that the tariff would be abolished in five years. That


was never the proposal and is not the proposal today, as can be seen from the White Paper, Cmnd. 823.
On studying that White Paper it seems to me that there will be quite a number of safeguards for the paper industry. Paragraph 19 of the White Paper, which the hon. Gentleman read in full, is, I think, a material safeguard. First, if there is an appreciable rise in unemployment, or a spectacular decrease in internal demand for the domestic product, certain protective action can be taken by the Government. Secondly, according to paragraph 20, the Government can limit imports by a quota if there is danger to the home trade. According to paragraph 23, the agreed rate of tariff reduction can be slowed up if harm is being done to a particular trade. Paragraph 41 deals with a different aspect of the position.
One of the things which the paper-makers require is a free and fair market for their pulp, which they require to make their paper. At present, there are, I think, cartels in Sweden and Norway which may artificially reduce the price of pulp to the Swedish manufacturers. I think that I am right in saying that by paragraph 41, which deals with restrictive practices, these cartels will have to be abolished and there must be the same price paid for pulp by the Swedish and Norwegian manufacturers as by the British manufacturers. Therefore, there will be a fair market for the pulp. The British paper manufacturer, being nearer his own market for home consumption, ought to reap some benefit from that if we bear in mind that the British paper manufacturers' market is at home and the Swedes and Norwegians will have to bear the cost of insurance, freight and so on.
Finally, there is a further safeguard. In paragraph 44 it is definitely laid down that members can take anti-dumping action if anything goes wrong and one of the seven nations does not play the game. We are free to retain, each of us, our anti-dumping regulations.
I do not think that the paper-making trade has much to fear, bearing in mind that the tariff reductions are to be spread over a much longer period than was originally contemplated and all the safeguards exist for dealing with special difficulties.
Looking at it from the other point of view, the advantage to Scottish trade of the Stockholm Agreement seems to me to be overwhelmingly in favour of the Government entering into such an agreement. I do not want to go into this at length, because I believe that Scottish trade, the wool trade, for instance, will reap great advantages from it.
There is one aspect, if I may trespass on the time of the House, which worries me. The British forestry industry is expanding rapidly. In 1965, in Scotland alone, there will be an output of 18 million cu. ft. of timber, equivalent to about 645,000 tons. In 1975, there will be 28 million cu. ft. output from British forests, equivalent to about 950,000 tons. The British Forestry Commission is planting in the United Kingdom about 50,000 acres of trees a year and private woodland owners are planting 30,000 acres of trees a year. This process is going on and the marketing of that timber is a problem which I do not believe we have adequately thought out.
One outlet, and it may be the main outlet, from the thinnings of these vast acreages which are coming into marketable form in the next twenty years, will be pulp. This is a young, growing industry and I hope that the Government, in negotiating this "Little Seven" Agreement, will not do anything to hinder or hurt the output from British forests, because I believe that it is an industry which we ought to foster, being of very great importance for the Highlands of Scotland.
I hope that the suggestions made both by me in the Scottish Grand Committee on the 3rd July and by various noble Lords in another place on 28th July, reported in HANSARD, will be studied by my right hon. Friend and the Board of Trade with very great care to see that in spite of what is being done, which I support, in the "Little Seven" Agreement made at Stockholm, no action will be taken to impair confidence in the future of tree growing in this country either by the Forestry Commission or by private woodland owners.
We are doing out best, and woodland owners' associations have been formed in Scotland and England. We must not hinder or hurt their efforts. I believe that there will be very great benefit to


employment in the Highlands of Scotland if nothing is done which might hinder or hurt this new industry which will be growing into such importance in the next twenty years. I would only add that the Forestry Commission and the British taxpayer are as much interested in this as anyone else today. It is in the interest of the taxpayers, as much as anything, that I make this plea.

1.40 p.m.

Mr. E. G. Willis: The hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) might at least have had the courtesy to acknowledge that it was the Opposition which initiated the debate on forestry in which he spoke and that it was the Opposition which drew the attention of the Government, in the first place, to the fact that we ought to have some pulp mills in Scotland and that the time had come when the Government ought to be starting them.

Sir J. Duncan: I was trying to be brief.

Mr. Willis: The extra words would have been much more welcome than the remarks made by the hon. Gentleman.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman to the extent that this matter is exceedingly important to Scotland. I believe—it is difficult to disentangle the figures—that we in Scotland have rather more than our share of the industry. We have a very high unemployment figure in Scotland at present. Unemployment has gone up again this month when it ought to be going down, and our economy is less resilient than that south of the Border. The Scottish economy is less able to absorb the few hundreds of unemployed, who may not appear important south of the Border, but are exceedingly important in Scotland. For these reasons, the matter is of great importance to Scotland.
There is also the fact that we have a very large number of small burghs built around the paper mills which would be very seriously affected. I regret that my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Pryde) could not be present today to put his point of view. He has put it very vigorously in the Press, and I am sure he would put it most picturesquely and vigorously in the House, because he has several such burghs in his constituency.
I have previously raised the subject in connection with the largest burgh in Midlothian, which has a very large mill. I raised the subject with the President of the Board of Trade on 16th July, and the right hon. Gentleman pointed out the safeguards which the Government were trying to secure in respect of pulp. I understand from the Scotsman today that the Paymaster-General did the same with the deputation which met him yesterday.

Sir J. Duncan: A Conservative delegation.

Mr. Willis: It was a Tory delegation which was rather peeved that the Labour Opposition should have dared to raise the matter on the Adjournment. Having slept in, the Tories tried to make up for it by going in a deputation to the Minister.
On these occasions we are always told what the Government have done about pulp. On 16th July the Minister said that we should have access at the same price as the Scandinavian mills to pulp and that our mills would also be able to make investments there. As I understand the position, what the paper-making industry fears is the importation of paper. I agree that the question of pulp is important, but I understand that the industry fears more than anything else the importation of paper.
It is feared that the 630,000 tons of paper at present going annually to the European Economic Community area might be diverted to this country. That is what the mills fear, and, I think, with some degree of justification. We have had no guarantees at all on that. After giving his guarantees about pulp yesterday, the Paymaster-General said that if the situation warranted special action, that could and would be taken.
Paragraphs 19 and 20 of the White Paper say exactly the same. However, I wish to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether we in Scotland have to wait until there are several thousand more unemployed before the Government do anything about it. That is the point which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. J. Taylor). We do not want guarantees that something may be done when unemployment has been created. We have had such guarantees before in Scotland. The


fact is that the unemployed are not absorbed. That is our problem in Scotland. That is why we are lagging behind England so much in this respect and why our unemployment figure has gone up again this month.
I would point out to the President of the Board of Trade that it is not good enough to say that if things go wrong—in other words, if 5,000, 6,000, 7,000, or even 10,000 out of the 17,000 at present employed in the industry become unemployed—'the Government will do something about it. That will be too late, and in the meantime an unnecessary amount of suffering will have been caused.
The workers in the industry feel that they are simply regarded as pawns in a gamble which the Government are taking in the hope that they can create something with which to bargain with the European Economic Community. My constituents—I am sure it is the same for other workers—do not like being treated as pawns in a game without some guarantees that their livelihood and standard of life will be protected. The Government have not done much about that.
I have pointed out that paragraphs 19 and 20 deal with the situation which might arise; that is, unemployment, after it has arisen. Paragraph 23 deals with the situation after the first cut of 20 per cent. in the existing tariffs on 1st July, 1960. The industry expects that that first cut will itself lead to unemployment. Paragraph 23 speaks of the situation after the initial reduction. Consequently, we are bound to regard this with a certain apprehension, because it does not seem to give the people in the industry any guarantees that the Government have grasped the serious nature of the problem.
I join my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian—I could have said much more about the problem, but this is a very short debate—in asking the Government to give us a specific assurance. Why should not the paper industry be treated in the same way as agriculture and fisheries? Why should not special arrangements be made? I can see no reason why not. In the first letter that I received from the President of the Board of Trade about the matter, he seemed to be treating the whole thing in a most cavalier manner. He brushed it aside and said,

"We are going on with it." That was the spirit of the right hon. Gentleman's first letter to me. I do not know whether he wrote to other hon. Members like that. He must treat the matter much more seriously.
Why cannot we have some guarantees about paper making in addition to the guarantees that the right hon. Gentleman has given about pulp? It is all right for him to tell us, as he told me on 16th July, that the paper makers can invest in Sweden. That might enable them to secure pulp at the same price as the Swedish manufacturers, but it does not deal with the problem which the industry fears. I understand that, for technical reasons, the Swedes would still be at an advantage because through having paper making mills alongside the timber they cut out a process. Consequently, if the British manufacturer is to enjoy the same advantages as the Swedes, he must take his paper making mills to Sweden and not simply get pulp at the same price as the Swedes. As I said in a supplementary question, this would not provide employment in Scotland. Rather, it would put 17,000 people out of work.
These companies have invested large sums of money in capital equipment. In my own constituency hundreds of thousands of pounds have been spent in the Inveresk mills. It is very difficult for these people to stop this development and go to Sweden. And it would not help the workers in the industry.
I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to give us something better than we have had to date. Nobody in Scotland to whom I have spoken, neither workers nor management, is satisfied with the present position. We want something better, and I sincerely hope that we will get it before the House rises.

1.50 p.m.

Mr. William Hamilton: I want to protest at the Government's cavalier treatment of this industry. I understand that there were no prior consultations between the Government and this industry before this Agreement was reached, and that subsequent consultations have been due to the industry's initiative in arranging them.
The hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan), who through us was given the opportunity to speak in this


debate, said he thought that the position was being exaggerated by the paper-makers, but he went on to say that the Scottish position was a special one because we were peculiarly sensitive to the unemployment position. We initiated this debate because of the unemployment problem.
The Secretary of State for Scotland took a contrary view. When the local authorities and the paper manufacturers wrote to the Secretary of State asking him to meet a deputation from them, the right hon. Gentleman bluntly refused. The letter of 10th July to the five county councils states:
The Secretary of State appreciates the interest of Scottish local authorities in whose areas the paper industry is an important employer of labour, but as there is no distinctively Scottish aspect of the problem, … he feels that no useful purpose would be served by his meeting the proposed deputation.
Who does the Secretary of State think he is? What does he think he is employed for, if it is not to meet such deputations when unemployment is being threatened?
The recent figures of unemployment in Scotland have been mentioned. These figures highlight the argument that we are putting forward. The President of the Board of Trade knows that the industry cannot exist in the face of Scandinavian competition without protection of some kind.

Mr. Alan Green: Mr. Alan Green (Preston, South) rose—

Mr. Hamilton: I cannot give way because I have only a short time available in which to speak.
My information is that the 20 per cent. reduction in the tariff next year will cause the marginal firms to go out of business. Less than an hour ago I was talking to a representative of the trade in the Central Lobby. He told me that when the 20 per cent. tariff reduction comes into operation next year, marginal firms in England will go out of business If that is the case in England, how much more is it the case in Scotland?
Another point that has been mentioned is that four out of five mills in Scotland are in rural or semi-rural areas. The Cairncross Report in 1954 was at great pains to point out that the Government ought to take action to safeguard the future of these places. They

would be dealt a body blow if the Agreement went through unamended.
Not only are these mills in rural or semi-rural areas, but very often whole families are employed in them. In my division, three or four members of a family are employed in the same mill. If the mill closes, there will not be just one income less in the family but the whole family will be out of work at one blow. This will happen in places where, as everyone knows, it is extremely difficult to find alternative employment.
We know what the Government's reply is likely to be, so does the trade. The Government's attitude is that the trade has ten years in which to put its house in order and make itself competitive. The trade's reply is that it cannot be competitive with the Scandinavian industry. Scotland deals with specialised papers, the market for which is not capable of great expansion and the industry itself is incapable of mass production methods.
The industry today is not inefficient. Between 1951 and 1957, £15 million was invested in the Scottish paper industry, mostly in the last two years of that period. I was told yeterday by leading members of the trade that, because of this threat of the Agreement, they are already stopping capital investment in the industry, or at least slowing it down. That is the position today.
The paper industry representatives know what the Swedes did in the early 1950s and that it is no good hoping that the Swedes will play the game. A written agreement is the only way in which our paper industry can be protected. It is well known that the Common Market in Europe will mean a smaller outlet for the Scandinavian industry and that this, in turn, will mean that the Scandinavian people will look for a profitable market in this country.
The President of the Board of Trade will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that France is putting a high tariff on foreign pulp. This means that pulp will be directed from the European market to this country. That is a fear which the trade has expressed.
I understand that the Austrian and Swiss paper manufacturers are in close consultation with their Governments. The attitude of the Austrian and Swiss Governments is very different from that


adopted by this Government to the British paper industry. The trade in this country is concerned about the approach of the Government to this problem.
I understand that the trade made representations to the Ministry of Labour yesterday. It is a pity that a representative of that Ministry is not here. I have seen a copy of the document in which the trade put forward its case and made one or two proposals, which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will seriously consider.
The first proposal was that the trade would prefer a longer period of readjustment. I understand that the original proposals allowed a ten-year period for readjustment. The second proposal dealt with the largest tariff reduction of 20 per cent. in the first year. The trade's proposal is that the smallest reduction should be made initially so that it can get a little additional protection to readjust itself. Thirdly, the trade suggested that there should be some kind of quantitative restriction on Swedish imports, at any rate in the initial period. In other words, the trade frankly thinks that the safeguards in the White Paper are not enough. The safeguards will only come into effect in very exceptional circumstances and when the damage has been done.
Another point which affects my constituency, and which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), was the effect on the coal industry. The Scottish paper industry uses 800,000 tons of coal a year, and the British uses 3 million tons. Moreover, it uses precisely that sort of coal which the Coal Board cannot sell, namely, small coal. If the industry has to contract the effect will be felt in the coal industry and in other industries, such as the machinery manufacturing industry and the chemical industry.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to underestimate the importance of the representations which have been made to him and the anxieties which are felt in the industry. If he will give an undertaking that he and the Minister of Labour will examine the document presented to him yesterday and give a reasoned reply to it, the industry will be very grateful.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): Sir David Eccles.

Mr. J. T. Price: On a point of order. I should like your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I would not like it to go on record that in this short debate the only Members who have protested are Scottish Members, simply because you have only called Scottish Members. The problem certainly is not restricted to Scotland. I wish to register a protest on behalf of my constituents in Lancashire. I appreciate the limitations of time, but it would be a lopsided representation of the situation if it were not put on record that Lancashire protests just as Scotland does. I feel duty bound to point that out.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: As the hon. Member knows, there is a list of three Members who have put their names to the debate on the paper-making industry. They are the three hon. Members whom I have called, and I called them in the order in which they appeared on the Adjournment List. I had no option.

2.0 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Sir David Eccles): I understand the objections of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price), because there are three great paper-making areas in the United Kingdom. The largest is in Kent, near London; the second is in Lancashire; and the third in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that this problem affects the whole industry. That is why the Board of Trade sees deputations from the industry, and why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland—with whom I am in close consultation about this matter—passes the delegations on to me. That is quite right, because this problem affects the whole industry.

Mr. William Ross: No.

Sir D. Eccles: Yes, but I am coming to the Scottish problem. We recognise the reasonableness of the anxieties felt by certain parts of the paper industry as to the results of the Association of the Seven, but I want to take issue at once with the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. J. Taylor), because I think I heard


him say that he was not sure that Scotland would benefit from this Association. That is not our view. We believe that as a result of the Free Trade Area of the Stockholm group there will be more and not fewer jobs in Scotland.

Mr. Willis: In what industries?

Sir D. Eccles: I am coming to that.
At the same time, it is obvious that when a number of countries join together in a free trade area the producers with the best natural advantages will do better than those less fortunately placed. If any country which was a candidate for a free trade area tried to make certain that every single branch of its trade would show a gain, that country would not be elected to the club, because the purpose of the free trade area is to expand trade in general. We must examine the position from time to time to see whether that results in any special difficulties.
There is no comparison between Danish agriculture and the case of the paper makers. Danish agriculture did not ask for protection. What it asked for was a chance to sell somewhat more of its products in the markets of the remaining members of the Seven, because it knows that Danish industry will be very badly hit when the tariffs go, because its industry is not as advanced as industry in some other members of the Stockholm group.

Mr. J. T. Price: Surely that is a fallacious argument, isolated as it is to Denmark, because Denmark is primarily an agricultural and not an industrial country, as we are.

Sir D. Eccles: The hon. Member must realise that there are industries in Denmark and that they are at risk, probably far more than our paper industry, as I hope to show.
The belief of all the members of the Stockholm group is that their total trade will be substantially greater as a result of the Association. It is confidently expected that throughout the area demand in general, output and trade between the countries concerned will expand. That will assist the general health and expansion of United Kingdom trade, and it will be of special benefit to Scotland.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) raised the question of employment being more vulnerable in Scotland than it is in England. The House has been considering for the last six months on what conditions we can best tackle the difficulties of employment in Scotland. The first and foremost condition is that there should be a high state of activity of trade in the United Kingdom as a whole, because only then is it reasonably easy to steer industry to Scotland. That is one of the benefits that we shall get from the association of the Seven.
I now turn to particular Scottish industries. We have considered the matter carefully, to see where the benefits will be. Wool textiles, hosiery, printing and important sections of the engineering industry can all be expected to increase their exports, because other members of the Seven are at present importing the products of these industries from America or from the Common Market, and we shall have opportunity to get some of that trade. The Scottish tourist industry is also likely to gain, because there will be much more travel to and fro between Scandinavia and the United Kingdom, and the natural ports of call for Scandinavians are in Scotland.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: What kind of engineering will be expanded as a consequence? Is much of it located in Scotland?

Sir D. Eccles: I believe that it is earth-moving equipment and heavy industry of a kind to which a tariff removal of 20 per cent. makes a considerable difference.
On several occasions recently hon. Members have rightly remarked that the absence of a Free Trade Area has reduced the attraction of the United Kingdom as a field for American investment, and that is true. This is a point of particular interest to Scotland, because the opportunities there for American firms have already been proved up to the hilt by some very successful ventures. The Stockholm Agreement will be the green light to American firms to follow in the tracks made by those who have already done so well.

Miss Margaret Herbison: The right hon. Gentleman talks


about the attraction of Scotland to American firms, but what guarantee have we that the Government will do everything possible for the paper industry, to ensure that alternative employment in the industry is available in some of the isolated places? I would refer to one such area—Caldercruix—where the blotting paper of the House of Commons and Government Departments is made. What guarantee have we that that area, where unemployment at present is over 7 per cent., will not be left without any industry at all, as a result of which people have to move their homes? This has often happened in my constituency.

Sir D. Eccles: I can give the hon. Lady the assurance that if it does happen—and I do not think it will—that there are patches of serious local unemployment because the paper industry is being hit by competition, we certainly will use all the powers we have.
The general expansion in trade which will come about because the United Kingdom is very well placed in this Free Trade Area of the Seven countries will give us, I have no doubt at all, fresh expansion in different industries, and we will have to do our best to steer it, as we intended to do in any case, whether there is a paper crisis or not, to Scotland.
I now want to mention this, because I think that hon. Gentlemen opposite have not got the facts right about the paper industry.

Mr. Ross: We have got the facts about the Government right.

Sir D. Eccles: When we were discussing the Free Trade Area for the 17 countries, we had consultations with the papermakers, who told us that, after giving the matter a good deal of thought, because Sweden was in the 17, on balance, they were in favour of the Free Trade Area of the 17 countries. [Interruption.] Allow me to give the facts. They said that very many of them welcomed it. They know, of course, that any expansion of trade always results in a higher standard of life and a higher consumption of paper. We have only to look across the Atlantic and see that the consumption of paper per head in the United States is double that in the United Kingdom. We have got to equal this and we will.
Now, the papermakers have represented to us that the Association with the Seven is something much more serious for them than that with the 17 countries, since it includes the biggest paper exporters in Europe, but excludes the big consuming countries of the Common Market. I believe that these fears are exaggerated. About one-fifth of the United Kingdom paper industry's output is newsprint, which is duty-free and will not be affected at all. At the other end of the trade, there are whole ranges of specialist papers which are proof against competition. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes. Excuse me, but I must be allowed to give the facts as they are known to the Board of Trade.
Where the Scandinavians have an advantage is in certain papers in the middle group, where the integration of the industry from log to paper give them an edge, but a very large section of the United Kingdom industry is based on blending wood pulp and rags or wood pulp and waste paper or esparto pulp, and is not in competition, and will not be, with the Scandinavians. We reckon that only one-fifth of the whole of the output of paper in the United Kingdom is directly vulnerable to competition from the Six.
I now come to Scotland. Half the paper output in Scotland is based on esparto, and, therefore, is not in direct competition with the paper made from pulp from Scandinavia. Another quarter is cardboard. The cardboard industry generally in this country uses a high proportion of waste paper, and it is very much easier to collect large quantities of waste paper cheaply in a highly populated country like the United Kingdom than it is in sparsely populated countries. We have an advantage there, and we do not see why the section of the trade, the raw materials of which are not wood pulp, should be severely attacked by Scandinavian competition.

Mr. Willis: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but is there not a point here that the price difference becomes so great that there is a change in consumption from the higher grade papers?

Sir D. Eccles: We do not believe that that is so, because the great competition has come—and this is really the point—from the concentration of new mills


round London. They are the people—not the Scandinavians—who are making their way in this market in certain lines.
There is another advantage which we have over the Scandinavians, and one which I think is going to grow. Nowadays, a modern form of production is to manufacture the paper and convert it into a package or carton so that it is ready for the insertion of the product which is to be put inside the package. That is becoming very much more common in America and is a very modern form of production. Therefore, we have a complete advantage over Scandinavia, which will not be able so easily to send us the packages, and I think that that form of paper manufacture is likely to grow.
All in all, we calculate that not more than one-fifth, mostly Kraft paper and board, of the whole output of paper in this country is at risk from Scandinavian competition. I think I should mention that in Scotland the proportion is probably less, because only about 5 per cent. of Scotland's output is Kraft paper.
Then, I would refer to the fact that there is a ten-year period for the reduction of the tariffs as envisaged in this preliminary draft for the agreement. That will give time for the industry here and its counterparts in other countries of the Association to make orderly adjustments, which, indeed, the Swedes have said they have in mind.

Mr. Ross: The 20 per cent. cut is very steep.

Sir D. Eccles: We have to start with a 20 per cent. cut, for this reason. The Common Market has already made one 10 per cent. cut, and will make its second 10 per cent. cut on the 1st July next year. It must be good sense that the Free Trade Area of the Seven should have the same timetable. We have, therefore, to make a first cut of 20 per cent., so that if, as we hope, by the time we come to an association with the Six, our tariff schedules will very easily be married.
As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) said, fair competition is provided for in this draft, in paragraphs 34 to 47, and we certainly intend to write in these rules. I am quite clear in my mind that unless free trade means fair trade it is

not worth having, and, therefore, we have to be particularly careful. It is in the interests of the United Kingdom that the whole world with which we trade should observe the rules of fair trade. That is why we have G.A.T.T. and other instruments.
Some paper makers fear that the Scandinavians might divert all their exports from the Common Market countries to the United Kingdom. Of course, there is absolutely no reason why they should. Why should they? They have got a good market in the Common Market countries now over the existing tariffs. Why should they not go on selling over the existing tariffs? Indeed, that is what the Swedes have said. In fact, we had talks about paper in Stockholm, and two representatives of the British paper industry were there at the meeting.
The Swedes said that they have no intention of abandoning their markets inside the Six, and, equally, no intention of trying to expand their markets in lines in the United Kingdom where they recognise that the United Kingdom has a great advantage.
I think, therefore, that these fears are exaggerated. The industry has done very well in the last two years. Of course, that stems precisely from the extraordinarily high quality of the investment in the paper-making industry which has been made in the past few years, leading to very large runs of production on very efficient machines. I think that our paper-making industry will come out of this fairly well.
I should like to repeat, that eighteen months ago the papermakers said that they would not object to, and many of them welcomed, a Free Trade Area with the Seventeen. We are making the Association of the Seven precisely because we believe that is the best way open to us to get what we all want, which is a wider free trade area embracing the Common Market of the Six.
If one considers the interests of Scotland generally, I think it is clear enough that if the United Kingdom did not enter into a Free Trade Area in Europe, Scotland's trade as a whole would suffer and Scotland's ability to attract American and other overseas investment would be reduced. There must be, as a result of a Free Trade Area, a greater volume of


goods changing hands and going across the frontiers—this at a time when packaging is steadily coming to the fore and when the consumption of paper is increasing. It always goes up as income is more widely spread, as the population grows, and so on. The British paper industry may have to change a line here and there, but it will find lines which are profitable and it will come out well.
Finally, one comes to the safeguards in this document which say that if very rapid and very serious unemployment is caused in any industry—

Mr. Hamilton: What does that mean?

Sir D. Eccles: —then the matter will be brought before the institution.

Mr. Hamilton: What do those words mean?

Sir D. Eccles: It is absolutely impossible to say in advance, because, as one hon. Member said in this debate—and it is interesting and true—paper is practically the only British trade which is fearful. But imagine what it is like in the other countries, where they have the prospect of the full force of British industry coming into their markets. Therefore, for us to try to get special safeguards in the way of quotas or tariffs before we are hurt, and in a case where certainly the Board of Trade is not by any means clear that anybody will be hurt, would be to offer an example to the rest of Europe which would be very much to the disadvantage of our country.
I hope, therefore, that hon. Members who have paper mills in their constituencies—and they are not very widely scattered—will find in today's debate some comfort for their constituents.

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT, MILFORD HAVEN

2.22 p.m.

Mr. Desmond Donnelly: Perhaps I may now turn the attention of the House to the problems of the industrial development of Milford Haven. But before I do so, perhaps it might be in order for me to address a personal word to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Some ten years ago you called me to make my first speech in this House. It happened to be a speech about the industrial development of Milford Haven.
In the intervening decade, I should like you to know, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I have had nothing but kindness, courtesy and fairness from you while you have occupied that Chair. If the shadows of a General Election should fall before I have an opportunity of addressing you again in that old familiar place, I should like you to know that you will always occupy a very warm place in the hearts of hon. Members in all parts of this House over which you preside.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. John Taylor: If my hon. Friend will allow me to intervene, as you know, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, it is not customary for brother Scots to compliment each other, but I should like to join my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) and associate my hon. Friends from Scotland with the sentiments which he has expressed.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Donnelly: I am also grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs for being here today, I understand, at some considerable inconvenience because of arrangements which he has already undertaken to fulfil. I am told that he even has a helicopter available to enable him to make a speedy getaway after this debate, and, as far as he is concerned, I must say that I can see the advantage of this administrative process.
I should like to say. a word about the background to the problems of the industrial development in the Milford Haven area. It is an area which suffered acutely in the inter-war years. My predecessor, Lord Tenby, said in a speech recently, in another place, that there was a period in the inter-war years when one in two of the able-bodied population in the town of Pembroke Dock were out of work for years and one in three of the insured population in the whole County of Pembroke were out of work. It was then scheduled as a distressed area. It became a Development Area and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the actual boundary of the Development Area has recently been extended yet again.
This is the background to the industrial difficulties of the area. It had two main natural advantages. One was its beautiful coastline, but I must say that there is


no beauty in unemployment and in seeing men rot. Secondly, it has an undeveloped natural harbour which is one of the finest natural harbours in the world. The original difficulty in taking advantage of this natural harbour was the fact that it was far from the main centres of industrial population. It necessitated an uneconomic process to use this harbour in the export trade on which this country depends.
That was the position right down to the late 1940s and early 1950s. Then gradually, with the growth of the ships visiting the main ports of Britain and with the increase in the size of the cargo boats, especially the bulk carriers and tankers, we reached a situation in which gradually the few remaining places at which these large ships could dock were so whittled down that Milford Haven almost overnight became an important national asset.
Then, as the right hon. Gentleman will know only too well, we had Suez, and among the many disadvantages and shames which Suez brought to this country, it brought the advantage to Milford Haven of making the super tanker a reality and an imperative necessity. As a result, this suddenly became an area of importance in our overseas trade, in certain respects because of its potential and because it was the only remaining place where ships of 100,000 tons could dock with complete freedom at all states of the tide. As a result of this, there has been a sudden development in the area.
There is the new Esso Oil Refinery which involves capital investment of about £20 million. There is the B.P. landing stage at Popton Point which will take the largest oil tankers to pump the oil to Llandarcy. There is the new angle iron ore storage depôt which will eventually take ships up to 100,000 tons, bringing iron ore from Labrador during the ice-free periods, dispersing it and taking it round the coast to the different steel centres where it will be needed.
That was the sudden change. But what does it amount to in actual terms of employment? At present unemployment is low. About 1,500 to 2,000 people are employed on construction at the Esso oil refinery and about 1,000 are employed on construction on the B.P. scheme. But these are temporary con-

struction jobs and these men can only remain in employment while the work is actually going on. When the construction is completed, a problem will arise. The B.P. scheme will employ only about 50 people on the landing stage. The oil refinery will employ about 500 on the various processes involved. All the other people will immediately be thrown back on to the labour market in this area where there are very few other alternative sources of employment.
In addition, there is the decline in the ship-repairing industry generally, and, in particular, on the shores of Milford Haven. This is partly because in our case we are far away from the normal shipping lanes, and, secondly, because of the cutting down in the defence programme which has led to a whittling down in the use by the Navy of those areas which it was using as its ship-repairing areas as part of Government policy.
Being off the main routes and the change in the plans of the defence programme have made a new problem arise for the few ship-repairing firms round the Haven. The difficulty is that although, eventually, the traffic will pick up, with Milford becoming a terminal point, it is not possible for these firms to build on a sound, viable basis at the moment and for some time to come. It is not just a matter of next year or the next after, but for a few years there will be a very difficult gap to be filled. It is very important that the local skills should not be allowed to disperse, but the local firms should be placed in a position in which they can build.
Although, superficially, the unemployment figures are low and, in the long run, prospects are good, and although a lot of capital investment has gone and is going into the area, there is a dangerous problem on the horizon. I must say that from this Government we have received a great deal of encouragement. We had the speech of the Prime Minister in the Suez debate in May, 1957. He said it looked as though Milford Haven might become one of the main oil ports of Europe. The Minister of Housing and Local Government on 25th July, 1957, came to Pembrokeshire and told local authorities to
Plan big. Do not argue among yourselves. Keep your eyes on the fundamental aim.
We greeted those remarks with acclaim.
The right hon. Gentleman came to see us again a year later and in Milford Haven itself, on 28th February, he made a magnificent speech. He said:
No development is more important to Wales at this moment than what is going forward on the shores of Milford Haven… . It is of national importance that the Haven should be more fully used…
I agree. He also said:
the whole pattern of the road and rail communications and power lines and public utility supplies must be worked out with thought not only for the immediate future, but for the distant future too.
He ended by saying:
The development of Milford Haven could be the admiration of the world.
That is magnificent speaking. The right hon. Gentleman does not need a helicopter to get to those heights. It filled us with great hope and as a result the Pembrokeshire County Council and other local authorities in the area with the Precelly Water Board, the main authority for water in the area, all decided to "plan big" and to "keep their eyes on the fundamental aims". They gave earnest consideration to the problem and undertook deep and searching surveys from which they came to two conclusions.
The first was that the industrial development of the area is limited by the amount of industrial water available. This is because the existing water supplies are limited. The heavy demands of the Esso oil refinery have led to a temporary scheme to provide 5 million gallons daily, but that scheme will run out in 1970 and it is a limited scheme. After that, new powers will have to be taken. In addition, if anyone else comes there is no alternative source of water supply to provide 1 million. 2 million or 3 million gallons daily. This is for any industry which might be considering coming into the area. Existing facilities are stretched to their limit at the moment. Temporary facilities are used by Esso. Any new hope is entirely dependent on new sources of water supplies.
In addition, there is the question of communications. We cannot have a development plan unless there is a road and rail pattern and that to some extent it also dictates the way in which use can be made of the deep-water anchorages. Pembrokeshire County Council and Precelly Water Board, as the water

authority, in joint consultation arrived at the conclusion that the only way this could be done was to take the Minister at his word, "plan big" and "keep their eyes on the fundamental aim." As a result of that encouragement, they decided that to get over the water difficulties they would consider the building of a barrage across Milford Haven. They decided that in dealing with the road pattern they had to do something about the division of the area into two. At present, there is a ferry between Pembroke Dock and Neyland which is a very unsatisfactory and extremely dangerous ferry. We have nearly had a by-election three times during the time that I have represented the county because of the danger in crossing this ferry.
Considerable expenditure is necessary on the ferry. It has been virtually agreed between the local authorities and Ministry of Transport that £150,000 to £170,000 will have to be spent at Hobbs Point, in Pembroke Dock, and about £80,000 is needed at Neyland; but that is still not the total. If a new ferry is required it will cost another £80,000. Getting on for £300,000 will have to be spent on that ferry if traffic is to move across. A main Milford to London motor road will have to be built and a by-pass may be necessary round Haverfordwest. A barrage could take the motor road across the top and do away with the ferry. The money which otherwise would be spent on the unsatisfactory ferry—which, incidentally, at the moment is losing about £12,000 a year—could be devoted to this purpose rather than having a very substantial loss indefinitely by carrying on on the existing basis. That would be of permanent benefit to the mobility of labour in the area.
This was the initial conclusion and the second conclusion was that if a barrage were used, besides helping transport it would be of inestimable value in providing almost limitless water supplies for the industrial development of the area. As a result, plans were considered to consider building this tidal barrage.
At this point I enter a caveat. I am aware that a Private Bill has been promoted to grant powers for the building of this tidal barrage. Naturally, I do not wish to infringe the rules of order and, therefore, I wish to make it clear


that I am not discussing the proposed legislation. I am discussing the situation which exists now without any new legislation. Secondly, I am advised that it would not necessarily mean having new legislation. The provision of a barrage to provide water supplies can be made under existing arrangements with statutory instruments. The roads could be built under ordinary compulsory purchase powers possessed by the local authorities. The question of legislation came in only because of certain other problems which, naturally, I shall not go into today. What I am discussing is the barrage in its administrative and not in its legislative context.
The local authorities came forward with their barrage proposal. Confronted with this sudden change, a revolution overnight in their area, Pembrokeshire County Council, Precelly Water Board and the other local authorities have shown themselves capable of acting with considerable vision and considerable appreciation of the long term industrial and social implications of the area. They deserve the greatest possible credit, their members and officials who have laboured so long over the problems. That was the situation up to a short time ago.
There was great encouragement from the right hon. Gentleman, fine talk from the Prime Minister and great hopes in the area. Then the Minister appeared and said that the barrage was premature. He said that he could not see it being built in present circumstances unless another industrial undertaker was available to make the water aspect of it, which I emphasise is the main aspect, economically viable. That is perfectly sound. The Minister said, however, that it might be required at a distant date, but not now.
The Minister asked his own Advisory Water Committee to consider this, and it reported that it thought that the barrage was a fundamental necessity for the future development of the area. The Minister took a different view. He over-ruled his Advisory Committee, although the Sub-Committee which considered the problem consisted, among others, of two important industrialists with great practical experience and an economist of very considerable national

standing. The Minister said, in effect, "No barrage now".
On the other side of the argument, the Pembrokeshire County Council and the Precelly Water Board, as the two promoters of the proposal, said that they had not the slightest intention of building the barrage unless there was a need and use for the water assured and unless a further industrial undertaker cams forward. Their difficulty was that local authorities cannot hope to attract undertakings until they have the facilities available, the powers to provide the facilities or the agreement of the Minister to enable them to meet the requirement. If local authorities do not plan ahead, they cannot expect to attract people to their area. This was the impasse in which they found themselves. However, the Minister said, "Not today, but tomorrow." His predecessor but one was called "Dai Bananas". The right hon. Gentleman will be known in my area as "Henry Manana" unless he does something.
An additional problem is that the Pembrokeshire County Council as the planning authority finds itself in a situation where it cannot prepare its development plan unless it has some idea whether this barrage is to be built, because it just does not know what is to happen to the whole pattern of the area. The present water supply is the ceiling on the development. The present road transport and rail communication system is a limitation on the forward planning of the development plan. Unless this impasse is broken, a very serious limitation will permanently be placed on the industrial development of this area and the hopes which were raised so high in the minds of the people in the district will be dashed.
I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman a series of questions. First, will he address himself to the problem of the one major objection which has been raised to the barrage, which is from the South Wales Sea Fisheries Committee about some oysters which have been put down in the River Cleddau? So long as the present situation continues, the more valuable those oysters become, and the greater will be the compensation to be paid. If the problem is dealt with now and the Minister gives an indication of what his attitude will be, it will clarify


the position for the South Wales Sea Fisheries Committee and their oysters.
Secondly, how does the Minister think that a development plan can be settled until the main linchpin of the development plan has been settled? Thirdly, what sort of view does the Minister take about his Departmental responsibilities in relation to the provision of communications in this area? I know that in his other hat he is the Minister of Housing and Local Government. Roads are the problem of the Minister of Transport, and he has not been doing all that well if one judges from the Reports appearing from time to time by Select Committees. Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to take into account the dual problems of water and roads and consider them together?
Finally, how does the Minister propose to avoid setting a ceiling on the industrial development of Milford Haven without facing up to the provision of more water? Water undertakings may be regrouped, but that does not bring any more water down the pipes. Administrative changes may be undertaken, but at the end of it physical action must be taken. What physical action does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take to remove the ceiling on the industrial development of the area?
I am grateful to the House for its indulgence. I feel that there is great opportunity in this district. The Minister for Welsh Affairs of the day, whoever he may be, must be equal to the problem. Therefore, I look forward to hearing the right hon. Gentleman explain his attitude.

2.45 p.m.

Lady Megan Lloyd George: It is a very curious coincidence, Sir Charles, that many years ago on the very first occasion when you occupied the Chair I was the first Member you called. It seems very likely that I shall be the last Member you call. I am very glad to think that I have been able to catch your eye from first to last. I should like to join with my colleagues from Wales and Scotland—I am sure that they will be joined by hon. Members from England, and on this occasion I am sure that we can also speak for Northern Ireland—in saying to you on this occasion how much we have appreciated your impartiality in the Chair and

your kindness and courtesy on all occasions. You will carry into your retirement our sincere and affectionate good wishes.
I am very glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) has raised this matter. It is a matter not only of great importance to Pembrokeshire and Carmarthenshire, but to the whole of West Wales. I carry the Minister with me in this, because he said that no development is more important to Wales than Milford Haven. As my hon. Friend has already pointed out, the right hon. Gentleman exhorted the local authorities to plan big. He painted in bold and glowing colours a vision of an expanding economy which was to flow from the development of Milford Haven.
The local authorities took the right hon. Gentleman at his word. When they become more used to him, they will realise that there is a discernible gap between his speeches and his actions, but they have not quite reached that state of mind yet. And so they not unnaturally came to the conclusion that the first thing they had to do was to ensure adequate water supplies for the industrial development that the Minister himself predicted for the area. They promoted a Private Bill for that purpose. I know that this is not the moment to discuss the untimely death of that Bill in Committee or the procedure adopted. No doubt that will be discussed in another Parliament, and no doubt my hon. Friend and I will be very glad to take part in those discussions.
When the local authorities followed the Minister's advice, what did the Minister do—the Minister who had exhorted the local authorities to plan big? He recommended the rejection of the Bill on the general ground that it was premature. He went on to say:
It may not be wise to proceed with the barrage scheme until the future in regard to industrial development is clarified.
It looks as though his helicopter had a crash landing and his vision with it. Not only did he throw his own speech overboard on that occasion; he also rejected the advice of the Committee on Welsh Water Supplies, a body appointed to advise him. This seems to be becoming quite a habit with the Government.
The Committee felt extremely strongly about the whole matter. It said:
The warranted rate of economic growth in the Milford Haven area in the next two or three decades will not be possible unless the barrage is constructed.
Therefore, in the view of the Committee, the whole of this development which the Minister has envisaged depends on the building of the barrage.
But the right hon. Gentleman says that the scheme was premature. Now this has a far wider implication beyond the case of Milford Haven. Does the Minister think that it is premature that a local authority should assure adequate water supplies if it is to induce industrialists to come to its area? Is this what the Government call providing inducements to industrialists? Is this the policy that we have heard about from the Government bench time and time again—all the inducements which the Government were offering to industrialists; how they were devising all the inducements to bring new enterprises to these rather difficult and inaccessible areas? This is a test case. When the right hon. Gentleman has an opportunity of assisting industrialists, what does he do? He turns it down.
As everybody knows, it makes all the difference in the world to an industrialist, when he is thinking of establishing an industry in an area, to know that he will have an adequate water supply. It will make a very great difference if, when he inquires about Pembrokeshire, the reply is, "At the moment we cannot ensure an adequate water supply. We can do that only when the Minister no longer thinks that our scheme is premature, when the Minister in his judgment and wisdom says, 'Now there has been sufficient industrial development to enable us to go ahead '."
This is a practical test of the Government's policy. This is a very serious matter for Wales. Milford Haven is the one gleam of light in South-West Wales—that is, west of Swansea. The right hon. Gentleman is always telling us how difficult it is to bring industries west of Swansea, although Swansea is only a relatively short distance from Milford Haven, Llanelly, or Kidwelly—and if the transport were better, the distance would be considerably shorter. Because,

of course, the transport urgently needs improvement. A short time ago I left Haverfordwest a quarter of an hour after the Pembroke-London Express and I caught it fifteen miles further on with five minutes to spare, with my hon. Friend at the wheel of the car.
Milford Haven can make a great difference to this part of the world. It can help to open up the whole of South-West Wales, where unemployment remains constant, in spite of the recent improvements, which we welcome, but where the old industries are either contracting or dying. If the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues mean business, here is their opportunity to take an important step towards the regeneration of a sorely pressed community.

2.54 p.m.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): I hate to deprive the hon. Lady the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd-George) of any distinction, but I am glad that her prophecy was not fulfilled and that I appear to have been one more speaker whom you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, have called. I should like to associate myself and the Government to the full in what has been said by previous speakers in the debate. You, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, are one whom we shall sadly miss. You are a friend of all of us here. I am very happy to think that Wales may still be holding the stakes when you leave the Chair for the last time.
We are discussing one of the most important developments in the whole of Wales, maybe in the whole of Britain. The Government's purpose here is so to guide and direct policy as to ensure that the great economic potentialities of Milford Haven and that part of Pembrokeshire will be realised without ruining the beauty of the National Park or the surroundings and without imposing any kind of strain which could not be borne. The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly), who represents that county assiduously, made an interesting speech, but I am sorry that it has shown him so far remote from the realities of Pembrokeshire. It must be the hope of many people that the electorate of


Pembrokeshire will think carefully before returning again to the House somebody who seems so out of touch with what is needed there.

Mr. James Griffiths: Will that be charged to the election expenses of my hon. Friend's opponent?

Mr. Brooke: The essential point here is that we should plan sufficiently in advance so that there will be the facilities available which industry needs but that we should not spend money so far in advance that the county will be so burdened by its heavy load of rates that industry will be scared away.

Mr. Donnelly: How does the right hon. Gentleman answer the point that both the Pembrokeshire County Council and the Water Board said that they had no intention of spending this money in advance of requirements? They are seeking his agreement to the scheme and not to perform the physical action.

Mr. Brooke: I will deal with that now, although I intended to deal with it later. It is not the custom of Parliament, as far as I am aware, to give compulsory powers to any promoters of Private Bills unless the need for them at the time in question is proved. I take full responsibilty for both the reports which have been mentioned. In reporting as I did on the recent Bill I was proceeding on the basis that the Bill gives compulsory powers. It empowers certain authorities to interfere with private rights, and my view as a Member of the Government is that Parliament should not give such powers on the grounds that they might be needed at some uncertain date but only if it is proved to the satisfaction of Parliament by the promoters that they are needed here and now. That difficulty is not overcome, I submit to the House, by any assurance given by one authority or another that if it is given the powers it will not use them until it thinks they are needed. Once those powers are given, nothing can prevent their use. Parliament cannot withdraw them. Parliament would therefore be delegating a discretion which should be its own to an outside authority.
Not very long after I became Minister for Welsh Aflairs there was sent on my

personal authority a letter to the Pembrokeshire County Council dated 10th April, 1957, in which I said:
Officers of the Department have already had some preliminary discussions and correspondence with you and the county planning officer, and I am to assure you that they will always be ready to assist in the future whenever the Council may so desire. They will have in mind, as the Minister is sure the Council will also, the need for bringing the amended plan"—
that is, the amended development plan—
into being as soon as possible so that urgent developments need not be held up and yet can be steered to the sites which are most appropriate to them, having regard to the overall public interest.
I stand by every word of that. My Department has been at the service of the Pembrokeshire County Council ever since. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Pembroke probably knows, there have been discussions from time to time. We continue to be at the service of the Council. It is not our fault that the Council has not as yet submitted the amendment to the development plan which I invited it to submit more than two years ago. I am not blaming the Council, because I believe that the planning authority has been under great day-to-day strain. Nevertheless, I wanted to put those words on record because they place beyond doubt the fact that I and my Department are ready at all times to help the Pembrokeshire County Council to find a way through the not inconsiderable difficulties which are involved.
Fortunately, as the hon. Member said, the unemployment problems of the area are for the time being overcome. In the last month the percentage of unemployment in Milford Haven was 3·6 per cent. and in Pembroke Dock 2 per cent. These have to be compared with unemployment rates of more than 10 per cent. only fifteen months earlier. I agree with the hon. Member that this has happened through the heavy labour force which is needed for the construction of the two projects, and we must think ahead and make provision for the future.
The case which the hon. Member sought to bring against me was that by taking the line that one particular scheme for providing additional water was premature I should be preventing the coming of further industry. The first


point I make in reply is that the Esso Company came there, even though there was no barrage, and it has been able to make its temporary arrangements for the supply of water. The total water consumption in Pembrokeshire at present is about 3 million gallons per day. The Esso requirement will not go beyond an extra 2½ million gallons per day for quite a number of years, though the company's powers extend to the extraction of 5 million gallons per day out of the Cleddau.
I referred this question of water requirements to my Welsh Water Advisory Committee. I want to seize this opportunity to thank the Committee for the hard work which it does in Wales, not only on this aspect of the water question but on many others, and I look forward in due course to a comprehensive report on the Welsh water question which I think the Committee intends to present to me.
The Report which the Committee sent to me did not seem to me—I must not say that it did not seem to hold water because that would be complicating the issue—to be as firmly based as in my view was needed if the case were to be cogent. Unfortunately, owing to the illness of a certain individual, I was not able to confer with the Committee before making my first report, but I was able to meet leading representatives of the Committee before sending in my second report, which was a document which that Committee accepted.
The essence of the second report was that there was common ground that if more than an additional 15 million gallons of water per day were required, the barrage scheme would be the cheapest way of meeting it. If the additional water supply were between 10 million and 15 million gallons per day, the barrage scheme might be the cheapest way of meeting it. If, on the other hand, the additional water required were less than 10 million gallons per day, the barrage scheme would not be the cheapest method. The water supplied by the barrage scheme would in that case be expensive water compared with the cheaper water which could have been obtained by other methods.
Frankly—and I take full responsibility on my shoulders in saying this to the House—I cannot at present see an

additional demand for water extending beyond 10 million gallons per day which would justify the very heavy cost of embarking on the barrage scheme. I would point out that 10 million gallons per day would raise the water consumption in Pembrokeshire to rather more than four times what it was before the Esso requirement for water started. This, frankly, is a matter of judgment, but let me say straight away that had I thought for one instant that the holding up of the barrage for a year or possibly two years would inflict injury on industrial development, I should never have dreamed of advising in that regard.
The barrage scheme is not the only way of obtaining water, though I agree that in many respects it is an attractive scheme. Unquestionably there are other ways in which one could, probably within a shorter time and certainly at a lower cost, provide water up to an extra 10 million gallons a day for industrial requirements. In those circumstances, I said to the Committee which considered the Bill—I am prepared to say it in this House, or in Pembrokeshire or elsewhere—that in my view a wise adviser of the Pembrokeshire people will urge them to examine the other alternative and potentially cheaper ways of making additional water available rather than to commit themselves irrevocably to the barrage scheme.
The hon. Member will appreciate that I must examine the barrage scheme as though it were going to be put into effect, because if Parliamentary powers were given, it could be put into effect without more ado. We have here to reach an economic judgment. Quite clearly an industrialist wants to know whether there will be water by the time that he requires it. He never requires it when he first arrives, because the water will not be needed until the factory has been built and is being operated. But at the same time he will certainly inquire not only about water, but also about the rates in the county; and if the county has committed itself to an excessively large expenditure which might impose a heavy burden on the ratepayers, that might well be a deterrent rather than an attraction to industry.
I must put to the hon. Member that that is a consideration we must never forget when contemplating the wise and


right development of an area like Milford Haven. We must never put so much money in at the start as would lead people to think that perhaps it will not be possible to service that money without those that are coming in being called upon to carry an excessive burden.

Mr. Donnelly: No one is proposing that.

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Member is now seeking to lead me into discussing matters concerned with the Private Bill. He knows that I cannot go into that matter deeply. What I have said, and continue to say, is that the right course is for the Pembrokeshire authorities to examine now the various alternative methods by which they could obtain water most cheaply for such industrial development as can be foreseen.
No actual projects have yet emerged, I very much hope that they will do so. I thoroughly believe in Milford Haven and its economic potential. But I would say to the hon. Member that I do not believe that the vast scale industrial development which is embodied in figures like a water demand of 26 million, or 36 million, or 50 million gallons per day would necessarily be best for Pembrokeshire. We do not want to turn Pembrokeshire into another Birmingham. There must be gradual, careful and well thought out development.
I say again that the attitude which I have taken on these water matters has been actuated solely by my desire that nothing should be done which would be premature, that nothing should be done which would be ill-judged and which might have a deterrent effect on the coming of industry. But I certainly regard it as part of my responsibilities that there should be arrangements made in time, and with my authority or the authority of Parliament, for water to be ready for those industrialists who come. I should have thought that instead of quarrelling among ourselves about this matter we should be able to agree on the best way to work together.

Mr. Donnelly: The right hon. Gentleman has not addressed himself to the other aspect of the problem, the communications system. Is he aware that he is taking a very limited view of his Departmental responsibilities as Minister for Welsh Affairs?

Mr. Brooke: No. I am deeply impressed with what my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation is doing to improve road communications in Wales. The hon. Member will recollect that at the outset of my speech I read out a letter which I sent to the county council more than two years ago saying how happy I should be to discuss any of these matters with it which would need to be settled when it was putting up the amended development plan for Pembrokeshire which I am anxious to see.

JERSEY HERD (BRUCELLOSIS MELITENSIS)

3.10 p.m.

Sir Gerald Wills: I am glad to have an opportunity to raise this matter, although the time in which to do so may have been a trifle attenuated. It is a matter which has caused much distress and financial loss to two of my constituents. It has also caused considerable anxiety among the farming community in my constituency and in the County of Somerset, and even in a wider area. To show the degree of that anxiety, I and my fellow Members of Parliament who represent Somerset constituencies have received telegrams from the National Farmers Union urging us to take all possible action about it.
The matter relates to an outbreak of a disease known as brucellosis melitensis in a herd of Jersey cows belonging to a young couple named Mr. and Mrs. Moon who are constituents of mine at Knaplock Farm. This is not a common disease but it is often a very severe one which causes abortion and grave deterioration in the condition of the affected animals. In this case it has caused the death of several. It can also be transmitted to human beings, when it is called Malta fever. Since 1940 there have been only about 61 cases of this disease and in that year the then Minister of Agriculture issued a Brucellosis Melitensis Order under which he was empowered, if he thought fit, to cause to be slaughtered any animal suffering from the disease and those animals which had been exposed to infection.
There was provision made in that Order for payment of compensation at the full market value for the animals so slaughtered. Compulsory slaughter was


ordered in 41 cases and the policy of compulsory slaughter continued until November, 1956, save that since 1942 the only animals slaughtered were those with the disease.
After 1956 the Minister decided that slaughter was not justified and it was discontinued. Nevertheless, the Order was never rescinded and the discretion still lies in the Minister to order slaughter if he so wishes. I ought to point out to the House that although there were 41 outbreaks in the 16 years when slaughtering was compulsory, there have been no fewer than 21 outbreaks in the three years since slaughter has not been compulsory. That is to say, in the last three years there has been an average of seven outbreaks a year against an average of under three in the earlier years.
To return to the case of my constituents. They are a young couple who started from scratch. By hard work, by ploughing back their profits and by a lot of skill they had by 1957 built up a very fine pedigree herd of about 40 Jersey cattle valued at about £4,500. In November of that year, 1957, a series of abortions occurred in these cows, and the "vet" suspected this disease, brucellosis melitensis, and he sent specimens to the Ministry.
It was not until November, 1958, a year later, that the Ministry bacteriologist diagnosed and confirmed the disease. By then, there had been many abortions. I do not think that there had been a live calf born in the herd, and the condition of the cattle had greatly deteriorated. Various Ministry veterinary officers visited the farm, but it was not until February, 1959, that a Ministry veterinary officer examined the herd. Then, I think the examination was rather cursory. In any case, he gave no advice about the treatment of the animals or as to the future course of action to be pursued by the owners of them. It seemed to my constituents that he was really waiting for a decision about whether or not the slaughter policy would be invoked in this particular case.
At about this time, the case was first referred to me. I wrote to my right hon. Friend and urged that there should be a firm and early decision about slaughter. In my letter, I stressed that my constituents would face ruin if they lost their

herd without compensation. I stressed also the danger to public health from the drinking of infected milk, the danger to individuals from contact with affected animals and the danger of the spread of the disease to other animals in the vicinity.
Towards the end of February, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary replied to me and expressed very kindly and very pleasantly his deep sympathy with the two people concerned, but he refused to make a slaughter order and thus give compensation on the ground that, although tests had confirmed that there was this disease in the herd, if the milk were heat-treated there would be no danger to public health. As regards the spread of infection to other herds, my hon. Friend said that it was theoretically possible but no case was known. This was reiterated by my right hon. Friend in answer to a Question last Monday.
It is interesting to note that, at this stage, when the matter had been going on for some time, no instructions were given to my constituents either to isolate their animals or on how to treat them. Indeed, the treatment of this disease is very difficult because, unlike the case of brucellosis abortus, there is no vaccine. They were so worried about the disease, as soon as they knew what it was, that they sent their five-year-old daughter away because she had been very ill. presumably as a result of drinking the milk. The mother of Mr. Moon also has been seriously ill, again, I imagine, from the same cause.
The case has caused considerable local alarm and has received much newspaper publicity. As well as several, and lately, very urgent, representations from the National Farmers Union about it, I have seen similar representations from the area drainage board because it is very worried that water passing through the pastures used by this farm will be contaminated and so, on going down to other pastures, will infect other cattle. I have received similar representations from commoners who live in the area and use the land there, and from individuals. None of these people who make representations can understand why, in such a serious case, with what I would describe as widespread infection, my right hon. Friend does not see his way clear to


using his discretion and making a compulsory slaughter order.
I wish to refer to another matter which causes me much disquiet, namely, the grave suspicion that the disease in the form of Malta fever can be transmitted from infected cattle not only through the milk but from contact with infected animals. Of course, it is not easy to obtain evidence about this, but my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, in reply to a Question by me on 25th April last, referred to the possibility of the contraction of the disease by contact, as he put it, with "infected material". I should have thought that a diseased cow was certainly infected material. I will return to this later.
I know that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will say that there is no danger from milk if the milk is heat treated and, since milk has to be heat treated, that is all right. But he knows as well as I do that an appreciable amount of milk, whether we like it or not, does go direct from the farm to the consumer, whether to an employee on the farm or in other ways. This is a fact which none of us can ignore.
I am sorry to detain the House on what may seem to be a purely constituency matter, but in my view there is more to it than this. My constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Moon, have seen their herd which they patiently built up and skilfully tended rendered practically worthless, and they themselves are in sore straits, but there are other factors, also, to be thought of.
In a letter to me, my hon. Friend, in expressing sympathy, said that it was one of the hazards of farming. It may well be, but what I am worried about, as well as the many other points, is the fact that no real advice has been given about the disposal of the cattle involved in this case. There are apparently no regulations affecting this matter. As long as a cow has not aborted recently, presumably it can be sold in the open market. My constituents are now driven by necessity to dispose of the cattle in the herd which are saleable since they cannot afford to keep them. They have to make what little they can of what they have left. I am surprised that they were able to sell any, but they have sold one or two. After representations from the National

Farmers' Union, they have agreed to sell no more pending the result of my appeal today.
I should now like to put the following points to my hon. Friend. The first concerns the grave danger of the spread of infection by the dispersal of the cattle from this infected herd which may have the disease dormant within them. It is about this that the National Farmers' Union is at all levels, from county upwards, most concerned and which it has asked me most urgently to stress. It seems almost incredible to me that my right hon. Friend the Minister, by refusing an order for compulsory slaughter, has virtually given his blessing to any efforts that my constituents can make to dispose of the cattle as they can.
Secondly, I, like, I think, many other people, am very gravely concerned about the risk of infection to other herds if the infected animals get out of their enclosures into other people's fields. As I have said, there is also the risk of contamination of water.
Thirdly, I am not satisfied that the disease cannot spread to human beings by contact. I have referred to the question of infected material. There is plenty of infected material handled by farm workers. For instance, mucus of the product of abortions is infected material and must be handled by farm workers.
Fourthly, this outbreak is remarkable for its severity and extent. I believe that it is the first that has caused the death of animals. To make a compulsory slaughter order in this case need not create a precedent in less severe ones, but not to do so will, I believe, as well as cause loss and disaster to my constituents, result in disquiet and the utmost concern to the farming community over a wide area, as well as to the National Farmers Union.
In conclusion, a compulsory slaughter order has been refused on a number of assumptions—that the disease will not spread, that the milk will not be drunk unless it has been heat treated, and that contact with infected animals cannot pass on the disease to humans. These are only assumptions. There is always the possibility of a first time when these assumptions will be falsified. It is because I do not want this case to be that first time that I ask my hon. Friend to reconsider his decision.

3.24 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B. Godber): I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir G. Wills) for giving us the opportunity to discuss this very difficult case in the House. I should like straight away to pay public tribute to him for the way in which, on behalf of his constituents, he has persevered with and pressed this matter. No constituent could be better served than in the way my hon. Friend has sought to bring forward his constituents' genuine feeling. It is, however, a very difficult question, and, as my hon. Friend will know, both my right hon. Friend and I have gone into it very thoroughly and at great length. The burden of my hon. Friend's case is that my right hon. Friend should use his power to have this herd which is suffering from brucellosis melitensis slaughtered and to compensate the owners out of public funds.
I think that I should start by explaining the Government's policy on the compulsory slaughter of animals. Whenever a disease attacks a farmer's livestock or crops, the consequences can be serious to the farmer, perhaps involving him in heavy financial loss. I entirely agree that the case which my hon. Friend has outlined, where his constituents' herd has an unusually heavy incidence of this disease, together with mastitis as well, must have affected them very severely. I am sure that the whole House will join me in having very great sympathy with Mr. and Mrs. Moon in their ill fortune, particularly in view of the points which my hon. Friend has made about their hard work and the way in which they have built up their business.
However much we may sympathise with the farmer, it is not possible for the Government to attempt to insure farmers against one of the risks inseparable from their calling by compensating them for outbreaks of each and every disease, no matter how heavy in the individual case. It is only when the public interest is involved that we would be justified in using our powers of compulsory slaughter with payment of compensation. It is from that point of view that we must look at this matter and not from the degree of loss suffered by Mr. and Mrs. Moon, however much we may sympathise with them.
My hon. Friend asked particularly why we were not prepared to use the power given under the Brucellosis Melitensis Order of 1940. The explanation is that at the time the Order was made, it was believed on the best advice available that this disease constituted a serious risk to public health. It was for this reason that herds and, later, single animals were compulsorily slaughtered on that account. Since then, however, experience has shown that that belief was ill-founded and in 1956 we decided to cease the practice of compulsory slaughter because there was no evidence that it was justified either to prevent the spread of the disease or to safeguard human beings.
My hon. Friend drew the perfectly fair point of the number of cases a year, both now and when the Order was used, but even seven cases a year do not add up to evidence of any serious risk of spreading the disease. It is not of sufficient significance to prove the case. It certainly does not compare in any way with the diseases for which compulsory slaughter is used. Indeed, the public interest is involved in only two kinds of disease; those in which the animal disease can be dangerous to the health of the community and, secondly, where the disease is so infective that it would spread rapidly through the nation's herds.
There are at present only four of the many diseases that can attack farm animals, namely, foot and mouth disease, fowl pest, certain forms of bovine tuberculosis and atrophic rhinitis—in which it is considered to be in the public interest to follow the policy of compulsory slaughter with compensation. On present knowledge, we do not think it right to follow that course with any other disease, no matter how serious it is in a particular herd.

The question is, therefore, whether brucellosis melitensis is a disease which falls into either category which I have named. Let me deal first with the possibility of a danger to human health. On this, I do not think I can do better than refer my hon. Friend to the Answer which my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Health gave him on 23rd April. We do not know of any case where human beings have suffered from brucellosis melitensis spread by cattle in this country. I assure my hon. Friend that we


have looked into this matter most thoroughly.

Sir G. Wills: That Answer also indicated that in Mediterranean countries, the disease had been transmitted by contact with infected material.

Mr. Godber: We must restrict ourselves to experience under conditions existing in this country. It is only on that basis that we can deal with cases of this nature. Therefore, on the question of human health, there is to date no evidence in this country which suggests that brucellosis melitensis in cattle should be treated as a more serious public health risk than, for example, brucella abortus, which is a more widespread disease among cattle here. Medical opinion is that if milk which is infected with these organisms has the proper heat treatment, it is made safe. Medical officers of health have powers to insist upon this heat treatment and an order requiring it has been served on Mr. and Mrs. Moon.
It is true that that applies to milk for sale and not to any which is consumed by the farmer and his family and workers on the farm. My hon. Friend made the point that other people could possibly consume the milk, but I do not see what can be done in a case of that sort. I cannot think that Mr. and Mrs. Moon, or any other farmer, would either take the risk of drinking raw milk themselves or allow others to do so, having been warned, as they have been in this case, of the dangers to other people involved.
Turning now to the other ground on which compulsory slaughter is justifiable, it cannot be said that brucellosis melitensis is so highly infectious to other cattle as to warrant this policy. My Ministry knows of only 63 cases of this disease in this country since 1940 and from none of them have we heard of any serious spread. I can well understand the anxieties of the local farmers, to which my hon. Friend has referred, when they are confronted with a serious outbreak of a rather uncommon disease. We cannot say that it is impossible for the disease to spread by contact or in other ways, but this is purely a theoretical possibility because, as I have said, in all the cases that we know of we have

never heard of any degree of spread to other herds in this way. I emphasise that.
Much the same applies to the point about the risk caused if Mr. and Mrs. Moon sell their diseased cattle through the markets. The Epizootic Abortion Order, 1922, forbids the sale through the market of any beast which has aborted in the previous two months. For other beasts, however, there is legally nothing to prevent a farmer disposing of cattle suffering from brucellosis melitensis in this way, just as there is nothing to prevent them from doing so in such much more widespread diseases as Johnes and brucella abortus. In these matters we must rely upon the common sense of the farming community generally.
My hon. Friend made some comments about the conduct of my officers in the early stages of this case. I want to make clear a very important point which I do not think has been fully realised in this case. It is not the function of my Ministry's veterinary investigation service to advise the owners of cattle directly. We must be scrupulously careful not to do that, for this is the right and proper function of the owners' own veterinary surgeons and it would be quite wrong of us to seek to usurp their position. It is for this reason that my investigating officers can come into a case only at the request of the veterinary surgeon concerned, and their reports go to him and not to the farmer.
I think that Mr. and Mrs. Moon have been under some misunderstanding about this, because many of the requests which they have been putting to my officers would have been more appropriately put to their own veterinary surgeon. My hon. Friend asked if my Ministry's veterinary investigation service could undertake a further investigation of this case. As my right hon. Friend has told my hon. Friend, we would be perfectly willing to do this if their own veterinary surgeon thinks it desirable, but we would not do so unless requested by him—that is, to see to what extent the disease is present in the herd now.
This is a matter on which I do not think that any Government could offer to compensate a farmer simply because he has suffered from a serious outbreak of disease on his farm. We could do


this only if there were a serious public health risk or if the disease constituted a serious risk to the national herd as a whole. The best advice possible from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health's medical experts on the one issue and from my own Ministry's veterinary experts on the other is that neither of these conditions is met in this case. I must say, therefore, that distressing through I know it must be to Mr. and Mrs. Moon, and though I have looked as sympathetically as I can at their case, I can find no grounds on which it would be possible for public money to be spent in compensating in a case like this.
I stress once more the difficulty in which my right hon. Friend must be placed in a case of this sort if it is looked upon only out of sympathy for the farmer. We naturally sympathise with those who have a misfortune in this way, but as a Ministry we must not base our actions on that sort of thing. We have these two clear responsibilities which we must fulfil. If a case does not come within the terms of either of them, then, however much we may wish, I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that it is not possible for us to take action specifically designed to help the farmer concerned. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to assure his constituents that we have looked at this matter in every possible way to find out whether we could help, but on the basis of the advice we have, both medically and veterinary. I regret that I can see no means by which we can do anything.

GREENOCK (GRAVING DOCK)

3.35 p.m.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House for giving me the opportunity of raising the matter of the Clyde graving dock. I hope that the Economic Secretary and other hon. Members will forgive me if I retrace a little history, merely to strengthen the points I want to make at the end of my speech.
As the Economic Secretary will know, Clydeside has wanted a graving dock for a long time now. During the war hopes were roused, particularly by the Admiralty, that the Government would in

some way provide the capital means whereby the dock would be constructed. As hon. Members know, the Clyde is a famous river, a great river for shipbuilding, but unlike its sister river, the Tyne, it has not had a large volume of ship repairing, and the proposed dock represents a complementary industry to shipbuilding which would give a balance of employment on the Clyde not known previously.
I still find that hon. Members who listen to Scottish debates by accident, of who come in and listen to Scottish Questions, are astonished to find that unemployment in Scotland is so high and in some parts of Clydeside is still at the astonishing figure of 8 per cent. of (he insured population. This represents m my constituency between 2,500 and 3,000 people unemployed, which is a great deal in terms of human frustration.
During the war, because of the mercantile fleet there and because of the large naval warships sailing the oceans of the world, the Admiralty thought there should be a large dry dock on the Clyde, larger than the existing largest one. Scotstoun-Elderslie No. 2 which can take vessels with a beam up to 85 ft. To that end the Admiralty began to make navigational and other technical inquiries into the possibilities of a dock.
Between 1945 and 1955 their Lordships of the Admiralty left this matter in the limbo of uncertainty. It is fair to say that the Admiralty was still considering the matter and, in fact, it was an article of defence strategy which was still on the agenda when the present Foreign Secretary was Minister of Defence. Indeed, in my own constituency in the early days of December, 1955, the right hon. and learned Gentleman made a public speech in which once again the Government tickled the palates of my constituents by suggesting that the Government might intervene in some way or other in order to help the emergence of this much wanted and much needed dock.
Early in 1956 the Clyde Graving Dock Committee, a collection of interested industrialists, threw in its hand officially, announcing in its official trade journal that it did not wish to pursue the matter any longer because it could not find any response from Government circles. I


saw as many of the men concerned as possible, and by having discussions with the previous Civil Lord I proceeded to try to raise the matter in the House, culminating in an Adjournment debate, in March, 1957.
It was then for the first time that the Government came to a firm conclusion. I am not blaming them in a party sense, but only then did we have a categorical statement by a Minister of the Crown that no State money would be forthcoming for the dock, and that Clyde shipbuilders, like those elsewhere, ought to find the capital to build that dock themselves. Personally, I welcomed this blast of cold, honest air because it turned the shipbuilders back to their original thoughts about where they would find the capital. We have a number of friends on Clydeside, and, in particular, we are indebted to the present chairman of the Greenock Harbour Trust, General Sir Gordon MacMillan, who in the early days made attempts to get the industrialists to find the money themselves. They were not successful, but there are many more people in Scotland who are just as concerned about shipbuilding and ship repairing in the Clyde as are industrialists and many of us in Parliament on both sides of the House, I am glad to say. We did our best to direct the attention of the Scottish Council (Development and Industry), the Scottish Trades Union Congress and other bodies to bring pressure on the Government to reconsider their decision.
The culmination of all these efforts was in the speech by the Chancellor in April, 1958, when he made his, to us, famous announcement that he would revive Section 4 of the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945. He said that in areas of high unemployment the Government would be prepared to consider assisting the construction of dry docks in order not only to deal with unemployment but also to provide better facilities for dry docking.
After a number of premature starts, the Inchgreen Investigating Company managed to get agreement on its application to the Treasury, which I understand, it lodged in December, 1958. As the Economic Secretary knows, since then I have never failed in any single month to plague him on these matters. I am sorry if I caused

him any embarrassment, because I know that these matters are in part at least confidential, but he will realise my natural concern not only as a constituent Member but as a Clydesider that this matter should not be lost sight of, certainly not through Parliamentary neglect.
When I applied for this debate there was a meeting the following day. I deduce no remarkable coincidence at all, I must compliment the Ministers concerned, the Prime Minister and others, because the ubiquitous Lobby correspondents were unable to detect that such a meeting was to take place. They did not know about it until 6 p.m. that night when a Press statement was issued from the Prime Minister's office.
It is at this juncture that I want to ask some questions of the Economic Secretary. He may recall his reply to me on 16th July. I asked:
Is there a time limit attached to the offer from the Government? Are the promoters expected to give an answer one way or the other within a certain time?
The hon. Gentleman replied:
No, Sir; it is certainly not outwith D.A.T.A.C.; nor for the time being is there any time limit on it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th July, 1959; Vol. 609, c. 557.]
I recognise that this is a very delicate stage in the negotiations. The consortium is at this very moment—yesterday, or some time this week or next—meeting to try to determine whether or not it can accept the Government's offer. I should like the Economic Secretary to confirm two points. First, is it true, as the Glasgow Herald has suggested, that, in fact, the broader economic considerations surrounding the dock have been agreed by the Government—that this is not a point of argument any more? Secondly, that the potential demand for a graving dock is accepted by the Government as having been established and that the dock is an economic, viable proposition? If the hon. Gentleman will confirm this we can get that out of the way and we have but one point left.
Do I take it that the meeting on 9th July was concerned with the very narrow, but very important, issue of the precise financial terms which the Government are making? It is said in the public Press and elsewhere that a Government loan at fixed interest rates has been offered.


The loan is said to be £3 million and the consortium has been asked to find £¼ million or whatever is the difference between that and the actual estimated cost of the dock.
I am not suggesting that the Economic Secretary should, nor do I expect him to, confirm these figures. I want, however, to ask him these two very pertinent questions. I should like him to reflect on the Answer which I got from the Civil Lord of the Admiralty in March, 1957, and which did so much good in this matter. Then the Civil Lord gave me a very clear and forthright Answer which helped all the interests concerned to sober up from their dreams of Admiralty assistance and come back to reality. I should like the Economic Secretary to do a similar task if that is possible and if he is willing to do so.
Is this offer a once and for all offer? If the promoters refuse this offer, are the Government saying, "We have been 'very generous' "—to quote the chairman of the promoters— "in this offer; we can go no further"? I think that a firm statement about that would be helpful. If it is true that the Government are concerned about this and are prepared to argue further about this point and that point, whether a fixed rate of interest is too high or whether the actual aggregate sum is too low, and matters of that sort, I hope that the Economic Secretary will say so. I should not like to think that in the summer months when I am inert Parliamentary-wise, at any rate on the Floor of the House, there is all this dispute going on and I am unable, with my hon. Friends and with hon. Gentlemen opposite, to some of whom I am grateful for helping me in calling attention to this matter, to do anything.
Is this a once-for-all offer or are the Government considering some modification of the terms if the promoters cannot find the capital required? Is there any time limit on the offer? We are not told whether it is a once-for-all offer.
I have been concerned with this matter ever since I was returned to Parliament three and a half years ago. I should like to know whether, when I am returned to the next Parliament, I shall need to pursue the matter even more intensely or whether my constituents will be content and rejoice that at long last, after two or three

decades, we have managed to secure this great economic asset on the Clyde which should develop ship repairing and make it possible to remove the incubus of unemployment which haunts my constituency and many other Clydeside towns.

3.47 p.m.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. F. J. Erroll): The hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) has a very fine record for persistence on this question. I would congratulate him not only on his persistence, but upon the extraordinarily good-tempered way in which he has, to use his own words, "plagued" us on the matter. I should like, on this genial occasion, when we are about to rise for the Summer Recess, to say that we have never had any hard feelings against the hon. Gentleman. He has done it with great courtesy and pleasantness. If I had been in his shoes as the hon. Member for Greenock, I should have pursued the matter with just the same persistence, and I should have been delighted if I had shown the pleasantness and courtesy that he has.
The hon. Member referred to the long history behind this matter. I should like to outline for a moment the Government's attitude towards dry dock construction throughout the United Kingdom so that the hon. Gentleman, and the House as a whole, can see rather better how the Greenock project fits into the overall scheme.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the Chancellor's speech in the 1958 Budget. I should like to quote from that speech. My right hon. Friend said:
There is a grave risk of a shortage of dry-dock accommodation … for the larger tankers and other vessels which will be coming forward in increasing numbers in the next decade. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th April, 1958; Vol. 586, c. 58.]
The Government believe that private enterprise can be relied on to undertake the needed expansion of capacity, and, in fact, private enterprise schemes are already going ahead at several places, such as at Falmouth, on Merseyside and on the Tyne. These schemes should lead over the next few years to a valuable increase in dry dock accommodation.
The Government also appreciate that it would be unfortunate if sound projects were to be held up or abandoned because of the inability of the promoters


to raise all the capital they require to put the work in hand now. It was for this reason that my right hon. Friend in his Budget speech decided to announce that assistance for dry docks might be forthcoming from the Treasury under Section 4 of the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945. The use of these powers has the added advantage of helping to relieve substantial unemployment in various places where dry docks have been projected. I am as sorry as the hon. Gentleman that unemployment has been so persistent in Greenock and has stayed at such a high level.
With Treasury assistance under Section 4 a dry dock has been completed at Swansea and work is proceeding on another at Jarrow. The Greenock graving dock is another private enterprise candidate for assistance under these powers.
I share the wish of the hon. Gentleman that the question of assistance for Greenock dock could have been settled before the House adjourned. I feel sorry for him being, as he says, "Parliamentary inert" and having to remain in his constituency unable to give his constituents definite information. I wish that on this occasion I could tell him more than I am sorry to say I will be able to. We realise that this project is one of great economic significance not only to the hon. Gentleman's constituency and Clyde-side, but to the country as a whole.
Although hon. Members are aware of it, I must remind the House that applications for assistance are made in confidence. Although there has been a good deal of reference in the Press and elsewhere to the fact that an application has been made in respect of the graving dock, I am still precluded from explaining the course of events since the detailed application was made to the Development Areas Treasury Advisory Committee in the last days of 1958. I can, however, assure the hon. Gentleman that progress has been made, culminating in the offer of a substantial measure of Government assistance to the promoters of the scheme by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 9th July.
I am glad that we were able to keep the meeting secret, and that not even

the hon. Gentleman, who is very good at ferreting out information on these matters, was able to learn of the existence of this meeting until the Prime Minister's staff made it known to the Press. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government's offer is being urgently considered by the promoters of the scheme and by the other interests concerned.
A scheme of this size, involving a substantial outlay of the taxpayers' money, needs the most careful study and consideration. Neither the promoters, who, after all, will be risking their money, nor the taxpayers, want a scheme which turns out to be financially or commercially unsound. It is in everybody's interest that all efforts should be made to ensure that the scheme is well founded, will prosper, and provide a lasting source of employment in the locality.
These matters are not only carefully taken into account, but must be studied with care. For this reason we are most grateful to the members of the Advisory Committee who, month in and month out, give a great deal of their time to study schemes for D.A.T.A.C. assistance. Although this is a bigger scheme than most, the members of the Committee are well qualified to judge the economic and other merits of it.
I mention this because the hon. Gentleman referred to two questions which I think he said appeared in the Glasgow Herald, namely, the broad economic considerations and whether it is a viable proposition. These are both matters which must be studied by the Committee and taken into account.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether this was a once for all offer. He also reminded me of the reply that I gave to one of his supplementary questions about a time limit. I said then that for the time being there was no time limit. We have every confidence that the promoters will study the offer that has been made with urgency, and we feel that until they have made known to us their views on the offer it would be premature to make any further comment on the duration of the offer and what might have to happen if the promoters were unable to come forward with any proposals. The proposal as it stands is a promising one, and it would be foolish,


as well as premature, to start considering any possibilities other than the possibility of ultimate success.
We must allow the promoters proper time to consider the offer, and that is why no time limit has been placed upon it. We are not out of touch with the promoters, and if they require or request further discussion before arriving at a decision the Government will be most willing to receive them again.
I am sorry that I cannot be more forthcoming to the hon. Member this afternoon, but I feel that the course of the negotiations would only be impeded if I were to give any indication of the way in which they have proceeded. It will be much more satisfactory for all concerned if I maintain the confidentiality of the negotiations which has been maintained so far. In these circumstances I cannot add anything further to this short debate, and I hope that the reply that I have given will not be too unsatisfactory to the hon. Member.

NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS

3.57 p.m.

Mr. W. F. Deedes: I am genuinely sorry to detain my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power until almost the last phase of this Session, and I acknowledge with gratitude his presence here to deal with a matter which arises from the decision to put one of the nuclear power stations at Dungeness and to convey power, by overhead line on pylons, thence to Canterbury. My hon. Friend will know that the advent of this station and the power line is anticipated with mixed feelings, at least in East Kent. These feelings have had some expression—in respect both of the power station and of the overhead line—at the inquiry which was conducted last October and the result of which has just been promulgated.
I shall exercise considerable restraint and resist the temptation to rake over that ground with my hon. Friend this afternoon. I have come to the conclusion that it would be profitless to do so. In East Kent there is resentment and even suspicion, especially in regard to the decision to run the line of pylons on one of the two alternate routes originally proposed—and on the route which seems

contrary to all the independent evidence offered at the inquiry. Against that. I must in honesty place on record my own belief that these inquiries are conducted by competent inspectors, who give honest findings, and if there was any monkey business in this case it was certainly not on the part of the inspector associated with my hon. Friend's Ministry, or with that of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
The fact is that entering public inquiries against bodies like the Central Electricity Generating Board is a little like playing poker with the jolly man on the Brighton train. No matter how many aces one holds, one always loses. But I am restraining my comment on this matter. I accept the Report with reluctance and I do not expect my hon. Friend to comment upon it.
My object is to raise with him some matters which are calculated to ameliorate the results not only for us but for people in other parts of England who are to have these gigantic installations erected in their areas. We all want light and power, and most of us take a proper pride in the lead which this country has achieved in the development of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes—but we all want these installations to be erected elsewhere. That is a natural and not irrational reaction, and I am not wasting time by pursuing it again.
The first serious thing that I must say to my hon. Friend is that he and anyone else associated with this tremendous development must not make light, nor encourage anyone else to make light, of the very great price which has to be paid for this programme in terms of things which count tremendously with a lot of people. Because an inquiry has given the right of way, that is not the end of it. In this case, naturalists, ornithologists and others have lost much in this area which for them was precious to save, and all of us who are associated with this part of Kent have lost the silent, open spaces of the Romney Marshes, which are really a great national possession and irreplaceable, and for that I think the whole country is the poorer. There are not many of these places left now where men and women can get away from the sound of a hammer. It is too easy, as some people try to do, to make light of the claims


of bird watchers and those who want a little solitude and silence. I do not want to do that, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will not try to do so.
It seems to me to be the heart of this policy that these stations must go into remote places. Thomas Hardy's famous heath, that strange, central character in "The Return of the Native", has gone in Wessex, and now Romney Marshes, or a great part of them, which have inspired quite a lot of literature on their own account, are to go. Perhaps my hon. Friend will say why these installations must be built in remote areas. Would there be any danger to the public if they were built near centres of population, and are the reasons solid or psychological? Is it likely that we shall be told in five or ten years' time, when the marshes and heaths have been invaded, that all is well now and that they might have gone nearer to the centres of population, or that they might have gone to the estuaries, because I appreciate their tremendous thirst for salt water elsewhere. That is my first main point.
It is not only the stations which concern us. They have to have lines to carry their power, in this particular case, as my hon. Friend will know, to serve a double purpose. They will bring power from the station and they will take power to Europe. In East Kent, we are to have pylons 125 ft. high in order to do the job. The man who tells me that I must suffer pylons 125 ft. high in the name of progress I can just endure, but the man who tells me that I shall eventually get used to them causes my gorge to rise. By any standard, 125 ft. pylons are ruinous to the English landscape and to any sweep of countryside, whether hill or dale. There is no other word for it. They may be inevitable, but as long as those responsible for them delude themselves, as some do, that after a while we shall all get used to them and get to like—even to love—them, there is precious little urge to think of alternatives.
These giant pylons apart, this country is becoming a birdcage. I know that we must all have electricity, and no one needs to persuade me of the boon it is to the countryside, but the lines and pylons which bear them, and which

proliferate, must be characterised as ugly, and cannot be glossed over by euphemistic talk about the silver-laced wings of twentieth century power. "Silver-laced" my foot!
I am immediately concerned with these giants 125 ft. high. I am told that to run the lines in this way costs £25,000) a mile, and that to lay the lines underground would cost £300,000 a mile. That brings me to my next point. I want to ask my hon. Friend whose figure is that of £300,000 a mile? It is tossed about very confidently at inquiries, and is generally accepted as authoritative, but who produced it? Can my hon. Friend say, in these days of enormous mechanical excavators, what brings in such a bill? I think a great number of people affected by these stations and their power lines would like to know a little more about it. My information, subject to my hon. Friend's correction, is that this figure is produced by the private companies who make the cables. I am not suggesting any funny business, but I ask my hon. Friend to say whether that figure has been submitted to any independent scrutiny. Has that been done? If not, I ask that it should be.
My third point is rather broader and I do not expect a detailed reply. But, in common with a number of people, I become increasingly depressed—indeed, I think the Royal Fine Art Commission said something on these lines some weeks ago—about our prosaic approach to some of these great modern installations, nor only those within the orbit of my hon. Friend, like power stations, but motor roads and the rest. Our approach so often seems to be a purely negative one, due possibly to the domination of the engineers and the subordination of the architects.
It is surely not only a matter of stopping the worst, but, when building something as large as a power station, of seeking to inspire the best. Some of our greatest engineers in the past have done it in this country and in your own, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and the Americans are showing how it can be done today. We cannot buy this for money, and I am not telling my hon. Friend that by slapping another million on the price of a power station we will necessarily achieve grace. At the same time, tight contracts breed bad, ugly building, and I relate this to the great inestimable loss


to which I referred earlier. No reasonable sum should be allowed to stand in the way of giving these great lumps a touch of grandeur. Let us, anyway, try to evoke the best that our architects and engineers can produce.
Here I turn to a point of detail. When these projects are being sold to us, the most beguiling photographs appear of a peaceful seashore and, nestling beside it, a great symmetrical clean-limbed power station. "Just a few hundred will be working quietly there", we are told. True, we must suffer some thousands building it for seven years, but after that we are ready to think that the birds will be back, that peace will descend and silence will reign. I think in reality that will prove eyewash. That is not how it turns out. Huts, garages, outbuildings, petrol stations, approach roads, dumps and a lot of appendages have got to be added to these major establishments. The perimeter is likely to emerge quite differently from its appearance in these preliminary advertisements. A landscape architect should be given control over the whole of an area into which one of these stations is to go. There must be overall design control, and I would welcome reflection on that point by my hon. Friend.
Now I come to my final point, and with it I utter a warning. Since the war successive Governments, quite rightly, I believe, have tried to impose stricter control on development by private individuals, by local authorities and so on. I accept the need for this, although I find it difficult to understand most of the Town and Country Planning Acts. But these standards impose obligations of examples not only on the Government, but on Government agencies such as the agency which is now responsible for building up nuclear power. We cannot have one law for the large and another law for the little.
Lately—perhaps too late—the statutory obligations of these Acts have been supplemented by what I would call amenity-consciousness. This is being fostered increasingly by amenity societies and is being most wisely guided by a body like the Civic Trust which has the respectable patronage of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence. Indeed, I think he was largely responsible for its beginning. I must tell my hon. Friend that I propose, with some willing assistance, to apply these

standards, both statutory and non-statutory, most rigorously in every phase of forthcoming operations in East Kent. It may well be necessary for me periodically to report to this House on how we are getting along. I think this may prove a very useful and instructive exercise.

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: Not only in East Kent, but in East Sussex.

Mr. Deedes: In East Sussex as well. I shall be fortified in this by having as my neighbours my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Sir T. Low), my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Sir H. Mackeson), my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. L. Thomas) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rye (Mr. Godman Irvine) willing to lend a hand. I find I have a wealth of legal and architectural guidance at hand. We shall see that in all respects the standards the State applies through Acts to the private individual, and those standards we are encouraged to attain at the civic level, are fulfilled in this nuclear programme. When there are shortcomings we shall have to take appropriation action. We shall be strict, but, I hope, just. We may be regarded as the vigilantes of a nuclear age which I know my hon. Friend will heartily approve and endorse.
Meanwhile, I invite him to say what he can to show that he and his Ministry are willing to do all they reasonably can to redress the losses which cannot be calculated in pounds, kilowatts, dollars or power, but which, none the less, are heavily borne and deeply felt.

4.11 p.m.

Mr. Stanley McMaster: I do not intend to keep the House for long, but there is one thing to which I want to draw the attention of the Minister. It is that in this country we have a great need to develop atomic power. No matter where we site our power stations there is bound to be difficulty and complaint, but the welfare of many people in this country will depend on the rapid development of atomic power stations.
I should very much like to see an atomic power station developed in Northern Ireland. We have just heard in the news that there is threatened redundancy at Short and Harlands, very


heavy redundancy. Development of atomic power throughout the country and in Northern Ireland may help us to employ more people, not only in atomic power, but in other industries. We heard earlier today an excellent contribution to the debate about a dry dock.
I should also like to see a dry dock in Northern Ireland, but that debate is over now. I am very much in favour of pressing on, as this country has pressed on, with this very important matter of atomic power research and development in the interests of the community and of trade, about which we have heard a great deal in this Session, and on which the prosperity of all our people depends.

4.14 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Sir Ian Horobin): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) for introducing this subject. I think I can go so far as to say that, with very few and minor exceptions, I associate myself with everything he said. The protection of the beauty—I think that is a much nicer word than the horrible word "amenities"—of this lovely island of ours should be, and is, a major consideration for all who have any responsibility for initiating or controlling development.
I am bound to say, however, that I think we ought to keep a sense of proportion in this matter. I am not by any means sure that the damage to beauty in this country is as great from electricity high pylons and big main generation and transmission stations as it is from the absolutely indefensible jungle of wires in so many of our beautiful villages and country towns which could be far more easily avoided and corrected. Moreover, from many years intimate knowledge I know the territory with which my hon. Friend and others, to whom he has referred, are concerned, from Hythe right away West to Winchelsea.
I ask hon. Members representing constituencies in that part of the country to consider whether any damage which may be done by major electricity generation and transmission can equal the vulgar desecration which has been produced all along that lovely coastline by bungalows, caravans and every kind of un-

controlled or poorly controlled and ill-designed development. Let us keep some sense of proportion.
Nevertheless, two blacks do not make a white and what my hon. Friend has in mind is a very serious problem. I will try to answer one or two points which he raised. We must face the fact, as my hon. Friend very fairly did, that for one reason or another, nearly all of them good, the demand for electricity in this country is insatiable. It is doubling every ten or twelve years. The demand for it in rural areas is, if anything, keener than in built-up areas.
For every one letter which the Ministry receives making complaints or asking for speedier advance in electricity supplies in built up areas, we receive ten or twenty from hon. Members such as my hon. Friend saying, "Why do you not hurry on with rural electrification? Why do you not supply people in the country so that they do not go off to the towns? Why do you not put electricity here so that people do not go south?" Therefore, the Generating Board and the Ministry have a problem which we simply have to endeavour to meet with the minimum of damage.
Why do these nuclear stations, in particular, have at present, by and large, to go to scantily populated districts? It is very important to be careful in one's account, because there may be dangers in overstatement either way. I am very anxious that anything which one says in defending the present policy should not do damage to the development of the nuclear programme by awakening false alarm. I can assure the hon. Member and the House that every precaution which is humanly possible at every stage is being taken by the A.E.A., the Ministry and the Central Electricity Generating Board to ensure that these strange new powerful installations are safe. The safety record of the nuclear industry is better than most other industries in this country.
But these installations are new. We have no long practical experience of running them. The first of the major stations is not yet commissioned. There are always remote possibilities of human frailty in their operation which might—we do not think that it will; in fact, we are nearly certain that it will not—cause


difficulties such as arose on a small scale in the Windscale incident. If anything, unlikely as it may seem, of that sort occurred there is always the remote possibility of fission products and radioactivity in the immediate neighbourhood, which might in certain circumstances lead to the need for evacuation in the near vicinity, to tests perhaps further afield, to the putting out of action of food production in the neighbourhood, and so on.
I repeat that all these things are extremely unlikely, and everything which can be done to prevent them is being done. However an ounce of practice is worth a ton of even the most advanced nuclear theory. In case any of these things should become necessary, it is surely common sense for the Government and the Generating Board to lay down the principle that the number of people in the immediate vicinity should be kept as small as possible so that the possible danger and the difficulty of the task involved if anything should go wrong are reduced to a minimum.
That is a balanced statement, so far as I can make it, of the reasons why, although we think that these things are safe and no precautions are omitted, nevertheless at this stage it is common sense to site them in districts where, if anything went wrong, the problem would be manageable.
I turn to the second point which my hon. Friend put to me. He asked whether, if we have to site them in this area and link them up in a grid and run transmission lines, it is practicable to put lines underground where they will not be seen. I ought to remind my hon. Friend that the need for a grid has nothing to do with the nuclear stations at all. Under modern conditions any station has to be big. In fact, the biggest station under contemplation is not a nuclear station but a conventional station. These stations must be big and they must be interlinked. That is not new but dates back for thirty years, long before anybody had thought of nuclear power stations.
If we have to link them and if, for reasons which I have given, some of the stations must be in districts far away from populated centres, is it not possible to avoid using overhead lines to

link them? I have looked into the question of the enormous disparity in cost I do not pretend to be an electrical transmission engineer and, as far as I know, my hon. Friend is not, either. One can, however, get a common-sense account given one, and I have gone out of my way to have it given to me by experts from my Department and from the Central Electricity Generating Board in order to give a broad picture. If my hon. Friend will follow me in a not very technical and short exposition, he will appreciate the point.
If we put a power transmission line up in the air we have to support it with something about four times in a mile, and at that point we have to insulate it, but we do not have to insulate it anywhere else, because the air does it for us and nothing can touch it. The costs are, therefore, comparatively small. Incidentally, the type of conductor can be different, but I need not go into that at this stage.
If we put it underground we must insulate it everywhere, and the insulation is remarkably complicated. I had a sample on my desk which I thought of bringing to the House, but it is very heavy. If my hon. Friend would like to see it, I will show it to him. It is not just a matter of insulating in the way in which we think of insulating a wire in a car. For these high voltages we wrap round the core, in the first place, 1 in. or more of carefully prepared paper. Since the paper must not get damp we wrap lead round that. Since the lead must be protected we then put steel wire round the lead. As the steel wire might corrode, we must wrap some bituminised substance round the steel wire which is round the lead which is round the paper which is round the copper.
The result is that instead of a total cost of £23,000 or so a mile, the cost of the cable alone is over £200,000 a mile, and the total cost is at least 50 per cent. above that when we include trenching and filling in. In certain circumstances, with which I will not bother my hon. Friend, there can be another £100,000 on top of that to overcome the peculiar problems of instability due to the condenser properties of the cable.
I hope that my hon. Friend will take it, with this very simple and, I have no


doubt, partly inaccurate layman's explanation, that this is not something which people have merely thought up. In essence, it means that instead of having to insulate a very powerful and dangerous thing at four points in a mile we must insulate it for the whole of its length, and this is a very expensive business.
Having done my best to explain that point, I should like to turn to the question of design. De gustibus non dispu-tandum. Nobody will be quite certain that his taste in these matters is correct. I return to the point which I have already made. Personally, I very much doubt whether the standard of design of these great installations leaves very much to be criticised, granted that they have to be produced at all. There is, however, a part-time member of the Board, a very eminent man, Sir William Holford, a member of the Royal Fine Art Commission, who has general supervision of all these matters. In addition, the designs of these power stations are submitted to the Royal Fine Art Commission.
I am not suggesting that what the Commission says artistically will always be accepted. I dare say that my hon. Friend shares with me the experience sometimes, when we go to some modern exhibitions in other artistic directions, of wondering how anybody produced the exhibits in the first place, let alone liked them. I would only point out that such expert advice as we can get is available to the Board and, is in fact, used.
That applies, incidentally, to the pylons also. I do not think that we can do much about pylons once we have decided that they must be there, but I am advised that half-a-dozen designs were submitted by eminent architects for the main pylons and that the design used was chosen from among them. I say that to show that it is not haphazard but that a serious effort is made to look into these matters.
I should like to take the opportunity of putting the record right in a matter which my hon. Friend the Member for Rye (Mr. Godman Irvine) raised on an Adjournment debate some time ago, on 23rd June. I explained to him and the House then that while the existing arrangements between the various local

authorities concerned in all this are not a matter for the Ministry, I had endeavoured to go carefully into the details of the method by which their obligations and the statutory obligations of the Generating Board had been exercised in connection with the Dungeness Station and its connections westwards.
The position as I explained it to him was that the Generating Board had to make certain observations to the Kent County Council and to a borough council in Kent; that Kent took certain steps with the Sussex County Council and the Sussex County Council took certain steps with the Battle Rural District Council. In fact, I explained what happened between the first alerting of these authorities and the inquiry in December.
The broad picture I gave was correct, but I am sorry to say that in one minor particular my information was incorrect and I wish to take this opportunity to put the record straight. I informed my hon. Friend in that debate that the Battle Rural District Council with which he is especially concerned had been told in writing by the Sussex County Council, who had themselves been told by the Kent County Council, where it could obtain further details about the proposed installation of which it had been alerted. My information was obtained for me on the telephone in time for the debate and really had nothing to do directly with my own Ministry.
I was left under the impression that the information was given in a letter from Kent to Sussex and from Sussex to Battle, but, in fact, it was given by the Central Electricity Generating Board by advertisement in the Press. I am sorry about that incorrectness. It does not affect the point at issue. I make no reflection either on the Kent or Sussex County Councils, or on the Battle Rural District Council. We are making every effort to get this machinery as nearly perfect as possible and the Ministry and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government are now engaged in seeing whether we can learn any lesson from this inquiry. We shall probably never get the matter perfect, but we shall do what we can.
In conclusion, my general answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford and those acting with him is that I wish them good luck in ensuring that no


opportunity is lost to minimise the damage. I am afraid that there must be some damage, if the development of electricity is to proceed as rapidly as I am sure most of his constituents would desire. There is nothing between us in our desire to see that the remaining beauties of our lovely countryside are not unnecessarily spoilt by the development of power industries which are. I think, inseparable from modern progress.

RAILWAYS (CHINLEY AND GRINDLEFORD STATIONS)

4.31 p.m.

Mr. L. M. Lever: The last words of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power in the previous debate were that we should ensure that our countryside is not spoilt. But it is equally important that the citizens should have an opportune of full access to the countryside. I refer particularly to the beautiful Peak District. All those who know Derbyshire, and the rich beauty which is unsurpassed in any other part of the world, know that at the present time its beauty spots are readily accessible to a large section of industrial Britain in the West Riding of Yorkshire and in Manchester and the surrounding districts.
I wish to remind the House, and sometimes it is too readily forgotten, that within a radius of fifty miles of the City of Manchester there live almost one-third of the population of this country. About 15 million people live within that radius and one can readily understand the congested conditions in which they live and the bad housing conditions which they have to endure. Many of them have few opportunities of going further afield than their own Peak District. There have been times when that district was inaccessible. There was a great fight for the right of the public to visit Kinder Scout. It was won and has resulted in much joy to members of ramblers' associations and to our youth who derive so much benefit from visits to it and by walking around those parts. Obviously, in order that such excursions can be made, it is of the greatest importance that access by rail should be possible.
Today, there is a train service to Sheffield from Chinley. On weekdays, there are nine trains; on Saturdays there are 12, including two in summer only; on Sundays there are seven. From Hope to Sheffield there are ten trains. From Sheffield, there are nine on weekdays, 14 on Saturdays, including two specials, and 10 on Sundays, including three to Hope only. On Sundays, there is one from Hope to Chinley, in summer only. Edale has no bus service. While the Minister may say that the Northwestern Road Car Company runs express services from Manchester to Sheffield via Castleton and Hope, this takes place only in summer, and there are about three each way.
The stations to which I am referring are Edale, Hope, Bamford, Hathersage, Birch Vale, Hayfield, and we fear that, if those stations are closed, Chinley as well as Miller's Dale will follow. Many thousands of men and women of all ages who now enjoy the beautiful Peak District will find the area completely cut off and inaccessible to them unless these stations are kept open.
British Railways will say that they have been losing money and must close stations here and there. One can quite understand a businesslike approach to the whole problem and their efforts to cut out unnecessary stations and stations which are losing money. But it is wrong to go from one extreme to the other simply because the railways have been losing money. Lines have been kept open and stations have been maintained, but now there is a move in the other direction which will cause serious havoc not merely in local communications and access to places of beauty but also in its effect upon the health of the community in the very heavily populated area to which I have referred.
While we understand that the railways must pay, and we all want them to pay, the Minister must remember that the railways should provide a social amenity. Moreover, if certain stations are not a paying proposition at the present time, I would suggest, none the less—this has been my own experience and the experience of many—that, if a proper service were arranged and organised, even those stations which are losing money now would not lose


money and would be able to pay their way.
I am making a very solemn plea to the Minister not only on behalf of the local authorities in the area but on behalf of the Peak Board also. The Peak Board controls and administers the National Park. We did not make the area a National Park in order that it should remain derelict and isolated, inaccessible to the people. We made it a National Park so that people could enjoy it. Now, the British Transport Commission is proposing to close these stations, and the result will bring much unhappiness and a great deal of unrest in the area.
This is so serious a matter that I felt that, even at this late stage of the Session, I should raise it in the House. It may well be that this is the last Adjournment debate not only of this Session but of this Parliament. In our debates, we show a lively sense of what is going on all over the world—no week has exemplified that better than the present one—but, at the same time, we should all learn to know and love our own country and recognise that, even on our own doorstep, there are beautiful places which are there for us to enjoy if only they are accessible to us.
People rightly come from all over the world to the Peak District. Yet if the youth and older people of this country are to be deprived of the opportunity to visit these parts a very serious situation will ensue. I appeal to the Minister to give us an assurance that, in spite of the sorry position of the railways financially, there will not be a move in the other direction to close stations lock, stock and barrel, thus denuding the country of some of the opportunities which it at present enjoys.
I hope that my words will not fall on deaf ears. I speak not only for myself, industrial Manchester and indeed industrial Lancashire, but for ramblers' associations, youth associations and local authorities in the area which feel so deeply that they will be deprived of something which has given them health and happiness.
I should like to quote portions of one of the many letters that I have received:
Dear Alderman Lever, Though not a constituent of yours I would like to write to say

how pleased I am to see that you are to raise in the House on Thursday the question of the proposed closing of the Chinley—Edale—Grindleford line. Surely this route to Sheffield can scarcely be called a branch line and its gives access along the Hope Valley to what is surely some of the loveliest scenery in the Peak District. It is a most picturesque line. The railways say it is not well patronised but it would be better used if they would put on a more convenient train service. There is a train from Manchester to Stockport between 8 and 9 a.m."—
he refers to weekdays—
which is not convenient for everyone. After this there is nothing till the train which leaves Stockport at 12.9, much too late to start one's day. There used to be a train from Stockport at about 11.14 which my wife and I frequently used but this was taken off about 2 years ago. I sent a letter of protest and suggested a diesel service. Surely a more frequent service by light diesel trains would be worth trying".
I want to put this proposal most seriously to the Minister. If a diesel car were run with a booking clerk on it, it would enable a service to be maintained and at the same time would not involve the expense to which this particular service has been subject. I believe that there is an example of this on the Western Region which is fulfilling a very useful function and is working quite successfully. I ask the Minister to give serious consideration to this proposal. Until the proposal is worked out in all its detail, will the Minister leave the stations to which I have referred alone and enable the citizens of the North, in particular, to have the opportunity of visiting the Peak District of which we are so rightly proud? This is my plea for the maintenance of these stations.
I want to think you, Mr. Speaker, at the close of this Session of Parliament, for the way in which a human and simple but yet vital problem of concern to the lives and happiness of so many people has been ventilated in this great Mother of Parliaments. I am sure that an assurance from the Minister will fortify us in the future in the knowledge that the British Transport Commission will not ruthlessly cut down its service but will enable our citizens to enjoy life as it should be enjoyed.

4.45 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Richard Nugent): I congratulate the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. L. M. Lever) on


securing the last Adjournment in this Session to raise the important matter of the proposed closing of this railway. It has become almost a tradition that I should reply to the last Adjournment of each Session and you, Mr. Speaker, have listened to these debates on a number of occasions. It is not unsuitable that we should be talking about the delights of this beautiful National Park in The High Peak when we ourselves are about to leave the tumultuous life of Parliament and, perhaps, have opportunities ourselves to enjoy the beauties and pleasures of the countryside.
I am the first to sympathise with those who enjoy such things, because I am among those who enjoy going for a walk in the countryside and find my natural home there. So I very much sympathise with the plea of the hon. Member for Ardwick for the access that the railway service now provides for the vast urban population which lives in Manchester and its environs and uses the railway to reach this lovely district.
The position, as I understand it, is that the London Midland Region issued a Press statement last May saying that it was considering the closure of the Chinley—Grindleford line, 21 miles in length, among many other closures that were being considered. The line has a fairly light service with an average of about 10 trains a day each way. I wish that I could respond to the hon. Member's plea, but he will understand that this is primarily a management matter for the Transport Commission and that Parliament has laid down a statutory procedure which the Commission follows whenever it wishes to close a rail service.
In the 1947 Act, a procedure was laid down that when the Commission wishes to close a railway, and makes a formal proposal to the area transport users' consultating committee, it must be considered by them. There is publication of the formal intention and objections can be heard.

Mr. L. M. Lever: There will be plenty of those.

Mr. Nugent: Objections can be heard by the transport users' consultative committee, which then makes up its mind what recommendation to make. That goes to the Central Transport Consultative Committee, which considers the

report and can approve, modify or reject it, as sometimes happens. That committee makes a recommendation to my right hon. Friend and sends a copy to the Transport Commission. That is the safeguard laid down by Parliament to ensure that, as far as is humanly possible, the closures that the Commission thinks are necessary from time to time should be made in the national interest and not in a haphazard way.
I would only add what I said last night on the transport users' consultative committees. They are independent bodies and comprise representatives of local authorities, industry, the farming community, trade unions, and so on, public-spirited men and women who give their time to do the job. It is a difficult, invidious job to hear these proposals and we should be grateful to these people for what they are doing in the public interest. We can, however, be sure that they are independent. Because they represent the consumer or traveller interest, they will take a fair view of a proposal and will not agree to it unless they are convinced that it is right and inevitable.
I think that I should not go too far into the general position of the Transport Commission because we spent all yesterday debating it, but I believe that it would be true to say that, although there was a Division, the Commission's broad policy of modernisation and rationalisation receives the support of both sides of the House. Rationalisation, of course, means cutting out the uneconomic services, and inevitably there are many of them in a system which was laid down in the last century when railway transport, practically speaking, was the only form of transport.
It inevitably means that many of these rural services and penetrating lines will have to be closed if the Commission is to have any chance at all of meeting the obligations which Parliament lays down upon it to achieve solvency taking one year with another. The hon. Member for Ardwick, with his great experience of commercial matters, acknowledged that the Commission must do that. This is one of the situations where practically everybody who spoke yesterday approved the general principle of rationalisation and then made an exception of the railway going through his own constituency.
The programme that lies before us is a truly terrifying one for a Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Transport. I do not know how many Adjournment debates I have answered on this subject in the last couple of years, but it is a good many. The prospect for the next four years is that there will be many times more closures and I can foresee that I shall be at the Despatch Box regularly every night answering the pleas of hon. Members about closures like this.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: After the next election?

Mr. Nugent: I feel quite confident, as no doubt the hon. Member does, about the outcome.
The Commission is now struggling with a vast deficit, which was £89 million last year, and therefore it is obliged to look most carefully at every single line which is not making a profit. But I should like to leave no doubt about one matter. These proposals come from the railways, and no railwayman would ever close a line which had any prospect at all of paying its way. On this occasion, I believe that the Commission is considering dieselisation. Whether or not it will be a light diesel car of the type the hon. Member described, I do not know. The Commission has only a few of them and they are experimental, but I am certain that it will try anything that can be done if the traffic potential is there.
I had a very similar plea last night for the rail service to Keswick in the Lake District. It is a matter of grave anxiety that the communications to these national beauty spots should be kept open. On the other hand, the railways have their obligations and unless the traffic potential is there they have no alternative but to consider closures. I must remind hon. Members of that background, but I am quite certain that neither the Commission nor indeed we ourselves would approve of a policy which was stripping the railway services and depriving the national life of something that is essential.
The obligation on the Commission is clear—to provide the nation with a modernised railway service that will meet the economic needs of the nation—and we as a Government are backing that

massively with the finance necessary to carry it out. The Commission is already showing every sign of making a very good job of it. I cannot, therefore, comment on the merits of the case because if the Commission proceeds to make a proposal to the transport users' consultative committee the committee's proposal must go through the statutory procedure and will, in due course, reach my right hon. Friend. He will then consider it, but I should like to leave the hon. Member in no doubt at all that the transport users' consultative committee is a responsible and independent body and that it will give most sympathetic consideration to the points which the hon. Member has so eloquently put before us today. I am sure that the committee will also read the speech which the hon. Member has just made to the House.

STAFFORD GAOL (CHAPLAIN)

4.55 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: Unfortunately, it has not been possible in the short time available today to secure the attendance of a representative of the Home Department to deal with the point I am now seeking to raise. For understandable reasons, the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department did not find it possible to arrange to be here to deal with my point.
Earlier today, Mr. Speaker, I obtained a Written Answer to a Question I had put to the Home Secretary relating to the arrangements now being made to appoint the chaplain at Stafford Gaol, and the reply I obtained from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary was to the following effect. The bishop of the diocese is not prepared to license the clergyman who had been appointed to the post. The appointment is within the power and discretion of the Prison Commissioners. It is true that under the present Act, as the hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out in his reply, the clergyman appointed could not, therefore, officiate in the prison, and according to the answer I obtained from the Joint Under-Secretary, he is being informed that, subject to the consideration of any representations he may wish to make, the Home Secretary will accordingly have to cancel the appointment.
The law on the subject is clear. It is set out in the Prison Act, 1952, which


lays down that every prison must have a chaplain who is a clergyman of the Church of England, and when a chaplain is nominated then the necessary notice of such nomination must be given to the bishop of the diocese in which the prison is situated, and the chaplain shall not officiate in the prison except under the authority of a licence from the bishop.
In my submission, who is to listen to the representations, is rather ambiguous from the reply I received today. I assume that the clergyman in question is now given the right of making representations to the Prison Commission, and the Prison Commission, acting under (he authority of the Home Department, will then decide whether or not in the light of those representations this gentleman who has been appointed to the post shall be allowed to take up the appointment.
My only point is that the responsibility for carrying out the law is vested

in Parliament, is vested in the Government, and I think that a considerable body of public opinion will reject the proposition that any bishop has the right to dictate either to the Government or to Parliament how the law shall be carried out. If it is felt in this circumstance by the Home Secretary that, because the reasons of the bishop are unreasonable or not acceptable to him, this appointment should be maintained, I hope that the Home Department will not allow itself to be dictated to by the bishop in this instance and will adhere to this appointment. In other words, if there is no good reason why this clergyman should not be appointed, then I hope the Home Department will see that the appointment it has made already is not cancelled.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Five o'clock, till Thursday, 22nd October, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of 28th July.